How would you fix the the way CFB decides the champion?

[OU_Sooners75]

Say you are Bill Hancock, how would you pursue changing the BCS to make it less controversial?

Me... I would push for a playoff first and foremost. I would also push for change in conference alignment. Make it where all conferences were equal in teams and determining their champion. Say for example, ten 12 team conferences (yes Notre Dame you have to be in a conference) with a championship game pitting the top two teams against each other, not divisional champions.

After that I would make the playoff be a 10 team playoff with seedings done by a committee of knowledgeable people, not rankings. The top 6 teams would get a bye the first week.

First round: game1: 7 vs 10; game2: 8 vs 9.
Second round: game3: 1 vs g2w; game4: 2 vs g1w; game5: 3 vs 6; game6: 4 vs 5.
Third (semi finals) round: game7: g3w vs g6w; game8: g4w vs g5w.
Championship round: game9: g7w vs g8w.


If my purposal couldn't get passed I would agree to:
1. No more automatic qualifiers.
2. Top 4 teams would have to be at least divisional champion (including tie) unless independent.
3. Top 8 teams are in BCS, regardless of conference alignment.
4. Plus one playoff. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Winners play each other. To determine champions.

[gwydion]

If you're going to have 10 teams might as well have 16. Takes 4 weeks to play out 10 teams. Same 4 weeks with 16 and I don't think anyone deserves a bye.

[OU_Sooners75]

Fair enough, but at the same time I don't think you deserve a shot if you can't win your own conference.

[Curly Bill]

Playoffs are so great we should start them week one. All teams are in, we gonna do single or double elimination? :)

[OU_Sooners75]

CB, how is your fire BV campaign goin for ya?

[Curly Bill]

CB, how is your fire BV campaign goin for ya?

I don't think I'm gonna get him fired, but if the bring back Mike thing works out, I see that as a semi-demotion for BV. I'll settle for that! :)

[StoopTroup]

And you turn College Football into the NFL Minor Leagues.

Also....ESPN and the BCS finally usurp control of what's left of the College Bowls and decide not only which one's survive but who runs them.

A Playoff System won't work well unless the Games are Based on Home Field Advantage and that means the end of the Bowls.

It all happens because some Team couldn't pull off a win against Iowa State on the Road.

Just accept that Alabama is the 2012 National Champion. It will be OK.

Now if you want to fix something....get the NCAA to do something about this stuff going on with Conferences and Teams cutting deals.

[Mississippi Sooner]

And you turn College Football into the NFL Minor Leagues.

Also....ESPN and the BCS finally usurp control of what's left of the College Bowls and decide not only which one's survive but who runs them.

A Playoff System won't work well unless the Games are Based on Home Field Advantage and that means the end of the Bowls.

It all happens because some Team couldn't pull off a win against Iowa State on the Road.

Just accept that Alabama is the 2012 National Champion. It will be OK.

Now if you want to fix something....get the NCAA to do something about this stuff going on with Conferences and Teams cutting deals.

That's the thing I don't get when people say have a playoff but make the bowls a part of it. Not too many fans can travel to, say, Miami for the first round and then turn around the next week and travel to Pasadena for the next.

[OU_Sooners75]

ST. I know you are narrow minded on this subject and think you should spew your ****, but this thread has nothing to do with OSU losing to ISU.

In fact the BCS had already decided to have these meetings well before OSU was screwed by the system.

I know I know, there is nothing wrong with the system...just like you don't think there is anything wrong in the OU athletic department right now!

[Curly Bill]

ST. I know you are narrow minded on this subject and think you should spew your shut, but this thread has nothing to do with OSU losing to ISU.

In fact the BCS had already decided to have these meetings well before OSU was screwed by the system.

I know I know, there is nothing wrong with the system...just like you don't think there is nothing wrong in the OU athletic department right now!

For the record: He is wrong about this part! ;)

[EatLeadCommie]

A plus one is all you need. There is no need for more teams than that. I can't ever recall a year where we griped about more than one team being left out of a shot for the NC.

I am not a big fan of expanded playoffs, whether it be wild cards in the pro sports or whatever. Just rank them and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. Winners play each other.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

A plus one is all you need. There is no need for more teams than that. I can't ever recall a year where we griped about more than one team being left out of a shot for the NC.

I am not a big fan of expanded playoffs, whether it be wild cards in the pro sports or whatever. Just rank them and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. Winners play each other.

I can get down with this..

[Curly Bill]

A plus one is all you need. There is no need for more teams than that. I can't ever recall a year where we griped about more than one team being left out of a shot for the NC.

I am not a big fan of expanded playoffs, whether it be wild cards in the pro sports or whatever. Just rank them and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. Winners play each other.

If there was a 100% guarantee it would stay at this I'd support a playoff system, but we all know it'd never stay at that. The drive to bring in ever more money would lead to a continually expanding playoff system. It's the nature of the beast.

[EatLeadCommie]

If there was a 100% guarantee it would stay at this I'd support a playoff system, but we all know it'd never stay at that. The drive to bring in ever more money would lead to a continually expanding playoff system. It's the nature of the beast.
True, but the conferences have to get on board with that, and the coaches would have to be on board with that for the conferences to be. There would be a lot of scheduling factors to consider if you expand it to, say, 16 teams.

[Caboose]

A plus one is all you need. There is no need for more teams than that. I can't ever recall a year where we griped about more than one team being left out of a shot for the NC.

I am not a big fan of expanded playoffs, whether it be wild cards in the pro sports or whatever. Just rank them and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. Winners play each other.

Allowing more teams than needed is a much bigger problem than leaving a team out. Anything more than 4 teams is idiotic and creates more problems than it solves. Some years even 4 teams is 3 too many.

[salth2o]

I would settle it with a fierce round of ro-sham-bo, then flip a coin (2 out of 3) for teh championship.

[Tidefan36854]

Allowing more teams than needed is a much bigger problem than leaving a team out. Anything more than 4 teams is idiotic and creates more problems than it solves. Some years even 4 teams is 3 too many.

I agree with this 1000%!! I hope the plus system is finally implemented, even if it is prompted by our "controversial' championship. I think the top 4 teams should play regardless of conference affliation. The plus 1 system would have settled pretty much all the controversies of the BCS era.

[sooneredaco]

Lets start with doing away with preseason rankings

[Tidefan36854]

The #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 games would be settled in either the Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, or Rose Bowls on Jan 1st on a rotating basis and the NCG would be a week (or maybe two) later for all the marbles if I had it my way...

It would only 1 more game and we could reatin the Bowl season - which is the only way the school presidents are ever going to let any playoff system happen.

[Caboose]

Lets start with doing away with preseason rankings

I personally dont think there should be any rankings until at least the middle of October. Of course the media will never allow this to happen. A September game featuring #1 Alabama vs #5 Penn State is a hell of a lot easier to promote to viewers than just Alabama vs Penn St.

[sooneron]

If you're going to have 10 teams might as well have 16. Takes 4 weeks to play out 10 teams. Same 4 weeks with 16 and I don't think anyone deserves a bye.

NO, stupid way to go. YOu really think that OU deserved a shot this year? Or Baylor? Or Michigan? Or KSU? (We did thump them pretty bad at their place afterall)...Hell no, this isn't little league where everyone gets a trophy and feels liks life is fair. **** NO.

[StoopTroup]

A plus one is all you need. There is no need for more teams than that. I can't ever recall a year where we griped about more than one team being left out of a shot for the NC.

I am not a big fan of expanded playoffs, whether it be wild cards in the pro sports or whatever. Just rank them and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. Winners play each other.

It leaves one of those Major Bowls losing a Game. Lot's of lost revenue. You'll have to make that up and get them to break with tradition....again.

Unless of course you are going to just get rid of the Bowls and just use the BCS to let those Teams play on their Home Fields with Home Field Advantage going to the Team with the best winning %/BCS Ranking?

I'm sure that won't fly either.

[sooneron]

Why not have 5 play 8 and 6 play 7 in the other two bowls?
That way we could get a realistic top 8-10 at the end of the year.

[StoopTroup]

NO, stupid way to go. YOu really think that OU deserved a shot this year? Or Baylor? Or Michigan? Or KSU? (We did thump them pretty bad at their place afterall)...Hell no, this isn't little league where everyone gets a trophy and feels liks life is fair. **** NO.

I think a whole lot of aggies feel like life isn't fair. I of course believe it's just them preparing to watch the best Team they have ever had disintegrate before their eyes.

[the-rover]

Do away with conferences....allow the NCAA to regionally divide the top 90 or so schools and take care of all scheduling...no more rankings...standings only.

Do away with bowls.....they mean nothing anymore anyway, most aren't even called anything that sounds like a bowl (Go Daddy?). The bowl people will cry about it, but the venues can still be used for playoffs....advertising will not lack, peoples pockets will still get lined.

At least 16 teams in the playoffs....top 2 or 3 in each reqional division.....no byes, 1st round at the higher seeded home field, play the rest at ex-bowl venues.

[Caboose]

Do away with conferences....allow the NCAA to regionally divide the top 90 or so schools and take care of all scheduling...no more rankings...standings only.

Do away with bowls.....they mean nothing anymore anyway, most aren't even called anything that sounds like a bowl (Go Daddy?). The bowl people will cry about it, but the venues can still be used for playoffs....advertising will not lack, peoples pockets will still get lined.

At least 16 teams in the playoffs....top 2 or 3 in each reqional division.....no byes, 1st round at the higher seeded home field, play the rest at ex-bowl venues.

Translation: There is nothing I like about college football.

[sooneron]

No $hit!

[StoopTroup]

Why not have 5 play 8 and 6 play 7 in the other two bowls?
That way we could get a realistic top 8-10 at the end of the year.

I see lots of fans in their old Buses and Winnebagos, they have fixed up, rolling down the highways like gypsies and selling their blood for ticket money......lol

[the-rover]

Translation: There is nothing I like about college football.


So, what you like about college football is not being able to crown a champion on the field. I see.

[Caboose]

So, what you like about college football is not being able to crown a champion on the field. I see.

The current college football system crowns a champion on the field far better than any other sport and infinitely better than the proposal you just made.

[the-rover]

The current college football system crowns a champion on the field far better than any other sport and infinitely better than the proposal you just made.

Really? You think it's ok that a bunch of baised people, making the decisions of who get to go into the "title" game, is better than a playoff, whose champion is determined from their product during the season.....like every other game and sport in the world?

I don't see fans of the NFL, MLB and other major or amatuer league and the end of each season saying, "What can we do to make the way we determine our champion more fair?" Why? Because it is the best way. Happens in D-1 college football every year. Why? Because the system is flawed.

[SoonerMachine]

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
· 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:

· Highest rank hosts lowest rank
· Second highest hosts third lowest


3rd Round:

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


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.; ’09 – Cincinnati, TCU, & Boise St.; ’10 – TCU & Boise St.; ’11 – Oklahoma State)
· Retains all conference championship games (scheduled last Saturday of November)
· Retains all bowl games, including invitations to the six teams eliminated from the playoffs
· Reduces lag between regular season and national championship game
· 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
· Will still require the BCS for the seeding of the conference winners and the selection of the at-large teams
· Expands the season for participating teams


2011 BCS 8-team Playoff:

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - LSU (13-0) - SEC
#3 - Oklahoma State (11-1) - Big 12
#5 - Oregon (11-2) - Pacific 12
#10 - Wisconsin (11-2) - Big 10
#15 - Clemson (10-3) - ACC
#18 - TCU (12-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#2 - Alabama (11-1) - SEC
#4 - Stanford (11-1) - Pacific 12

1st Round:

#1 LSU hosts #18 TCU

#3 Oklahoma State hosts #15 Clemson

#5 Oregon hosts #10 Wisconsin

At-Large Elimination Game:

#2 Alabama hosts #4 Stanford


8-team Playoff History

2010

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Auburn (13-0) - SEC
#2 - Oregon (12-0) - Pacific 10
#3 - TCU (12-0) - Mountain West
#5 - Wisconsin (11-1) - Big 10
#7 - OU (11-2) - Big 12
#10 - Boise State (11-1) - WAC

At-Large Teams

#4 - Stanford (11-1) - Pacific 10
#6 - Ohio State (11-1) - Big 10


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 State (13-0) - WAC
#7 - Oregon (10-2) - Pacific 10

At-Large Teams

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


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 State (11-1) - Big 10
#9 - Boise State (12-1) - WAC

At-Large Teams

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

[Caboose]

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
· 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:

· Highest rank hosts lowest rank
· Second highest hosts third lowest


3rd Round:

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


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.; ’09 – Cincinnati, TCU, & Boise St.; ’10 – TCU & Boise St.; ’11 – Oklahoma State)
· Retains all conference championship games (scheduled last Saturday of November)
· Retains all bowl games, including invitations to the six teams eliminated from the playoffs
· Reduces lag between regular season and national championship game
· 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
· Will still require the BCS for the seeding of the conference winners and the selection of the at-large teams
· Expands the season for participating teams


2011 BCS 8-team Playoff:

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - LSU (13-0) - SEC
#3 - Oklahoma State (11-1) - Big 12
#5 - Oregon (11-2) - Pacific 12
#10 - Wisconsin (11-2) - Big 10
#15 - Clemson (10-3) - ACC
#18 - TCU (12-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#2 - Alabama (11-1) - SEC
#4 - Stanford (11-1) - Pacific 12


This is an awful idea because it completely ignores the reason we award a championship to begin with. I dont have time to respond to the entire thing so I will focus on the key problem areas.


Advantages:

· Incorporates a true playoff field while emphasizing the regular season

First and foremost, this. It does the exact opposite. What you have proposed is not remotely close to a playoff. You have presented a post-season tournament not a playoff, seeded arbitrarily and subjectively, which includes less deserving teams over more deserving teams and drastically decreases the importance of the regular season over what we have now.


2011 BCS 8-team Playoff:

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - LSU (13-0) - SEC
#3 - Oklahoma State (11-1) - Big 12
#5 - Oregon (11-2) - Pacific 12
#10 - Wisconsin (11-2) - Big 10
#15 - Clemson (10-3) - ACC
#18 - TCU (12-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#2 - Alabama (11-1) - SEC
#4 - Stanford (11-1) - Pacific 12


I will spell it out for your 2011 scenario, but the same logic to all of them.

Inexplicably allowed in: Oregon, Wisconsin, Clemson, TCU. Now to be honest, the reality is that NO ONE should have been considered for the national championship other than LSU. But the other teams you have allowed in could reasonably be argued so I wont protest them in this post.

Inexplicably left out (based on who you let in): Arkansas, Boise St, Kansas St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Baylor, Michigan, Oklahoma, Georgia, Michigan State, Houston, Nebraska, Penn St, West Virginia.

There is no logical way you can justify giving Clemson and TCU a shot at the national title over Arkansas and Boise St, or even West Virginia.

[olevetonahill]

1st Get rid of ALL Rankings
2nd separate ALL D1 schools in to 10 Conferences
3rd each Con. have 2 divisions
4th each Con. have a Playoff game
5th each Con. Champ gets a shot at playin fer the Crystal

[StoopTroup]

Wow....this looks like a machine did this....:D

I'm sorry but every time someone posts one of these solutions it just gets picked apart and we end up with even more questions than answers. I know everyone thinks they have an answer but it's really just more of a BCS like cram it down your throat answer that will end up with people still split on what the right answer is.


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
· 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:

· Highest rank hosts lowest rank
· Second highest hosts third lowest


3rd Round:

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


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.; ’09 – Cincinnati, TCU, & Boise St.; ’10 – TCU & Boise St.; ’11 – Oklahoma State)
· Retains all conference championship games (scheduled last Saturday of November)
· Retains all bowl games, including invitations to the six teams eliminated from the playoffs
· Reduces lag between regular season and national championship game
· 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
· Will still require the BCS for the seeding of the conference winners and the selection of the at-large teams
· Expands the season for participating teams


2011 BCS 8-team Playoff:

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - LSU (13-0) - SEC
#3 - Oklahoma State (11-1) - Big 12
#5 - Oregon (11-2) - Pacific 12
#10 - Wisconsin (11-2) - Big 10
#15 - Clemson (10-3) - ACC
#18 - TCU (12-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#2 - Alabama (11-1) - SEC
#4 - Stanford (11-1) - Pacific 12

1st Round:

#1 LSU hosts #18 TCU

#3 Oklahoma State hosts #15 Clemson

#5 Oregon hosts #10 Wisconsin

At-Large Elimination Game:

#2 Alabama hosts #4 Stanford


8-team Playoff History

2010

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Auburn (13-0) - SEC
#2 - Oregon (12-0) - Pacific 10
#3 - TCU (12-0) - Mountain West
#5 - Wisconsin (11-1) - Big 10
#7 - OU (11-2) - Big 12
#10 - Boise State (11-1) - WAC

At-Large Teams

#4 - Stanford (11-1) - Pacific 10
#6 - Ohio State (11-1) - Big 10


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 State (13-0) - WAC
#7 - Oregon (10-2) - Pacific 10

At-Large Teams

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


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 State (11-1) - Big 10
#9 - Boise State (12-1) - WAC

At-Large Teams

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

[SoonerMachine]

The reason to place 6 spots in this playoff system to only 'conference champions' is to actually place more emphasis on the regular season and CCG than an open 'top #' format.

2011 FBS Conference Champs

#1 SEC – LSU 13-0
#3 Big 12 – Oklahoma State 11-1
#5 Pac 12 – Oregon 11-2
#10 Big Ten – Wisconsin 11-2
#15 ACC – Clemson 10-3
#18 Mountain West – TCU 10-2

----------------------------------------------------------------

#21 Conference USA – Southern Miss 11-2
#23 Big East – West Virginia 9-3
#28 Sun Belt – Arkansas St. 10-2
#31 Mid-American – Northern Illinois 10-3
#NR WAC – Louisiana Tech 8-4

[SoonerMachine]

1st Get rid of ALL Rankings
2nd separate ALL D1 schools in to 10 Conferences
3rd each Con. have 2 divisions
4th each Con. have a Playoff game
5th each Con. Champ gets a shot at playin fer the Crystal

Kinda like this... (8 conf instead of 10)


ACC

(North)

Virginia
Virginia Tech.
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
N.C. St.
Maryland
Appalachian St. *

(South)

East Carolina
Georgia Tech.
Clemson
Florida St.
South Florida
Miami
UCF
Florida International


Big Ol’ Sixteen

(North)

Colorado
Colorado St.
Kansas
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas St.
Iowa St.
Northern Iowa *

(South)

Oklahoma
Texas Tech.
Texas
Oklahoma St.
Texas A&M
Baylor
Tulsa
Houston


BIG EAST

(East)

Army
Boston College
Rutgers
Connecticut
Syracuse
Temple
Buffalo U.
New Hampshire U. *

(West)

West Virginia
Pittsburgh
Louisville
Marshall
Akron
Cincinnati
Kent St.
Youngstown St. *


BIG SWEET 16

(Great Lakes)

Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Michigan St.
Central Michigan
Western Michigan

(Great Plains)

Penn St.
Notre Dame
Purdue
Iowa
Indiana
Illinois
Ohio U.
Ball St.


PAC 16

(North)

California
Stanford
Washington
Washington St.
Oregon
Oregon St.
San Jose St.
Eastern Washington *

(South)

USC
UCLA
UNLV
Fresno St.
San Diego St.
Arizona St.
Arizona
Cal. Poly. SLO *


SEC

(East)

Tennessee
Florida
Georgia
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
South Carolina
Middle Tenn. St.
Florida Atlantic

(West)

LSU
Mississippi
Auburn
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi St.
La. Tech.
La. Lafayette


BIG WEST

(North)

Utah
Utah St.
BYU
Idaho
Boise St.
Nevada
Wyoming
Montana *

(South)

SMU
Hawaii
North Texas
New Mexico
New Mexico St.
TCU
Air Force
UTEP


MID–AMERICAN

(North)

Navy
Toledo
Miami (OH)
Bowling Green
Northern Illinois
Arkansas St.
Eastern Michigan
Western Kentucky

(South)

Rice
Memphis
Southern Miss.
Troy
UAB
Tulane
La. Monroe
Stephen F. Austin *

* Formerly Division 1-AA

[SoonerMachine]

@StoopTroup

I actually agree... It's just an idea!

[StoopTroup]

@StoopTroup

I actually agree... It's just an idea!

I'm not trying to diss your ideas. Just that there is so damn much money on the table that good sense or a real solution doesn't seem to be anything that could possibly happen.

[Russ]

Fair enough, but at the same time I don't think you deserve a shot if you can't win your own conference.

I dont believe you deserve a shot if you win the sunbelt

[Russ]

The reason to place 6 spots in this playoff system to only 'conference champions' is to actually place more emphasis on the regular season and CCG than an open 'top #' format.

2011 FBS Conference Champs

#1 SEC – LSU 13-0
#3 Big 12 – Oklahoma State 11-1
#5 Pac 12 – Oregon 11-2
#10 Big Ten – Wisconsin 11-2
#15 ACC – Clemson 10-3
#18 Mountain West – TCU 10-2

----------------------------------------------------------------

#21 Conference USA – Southern Miss 11-2
#23 Big East – West Virginia 9-3
#28 Sun Belt – Arkansas St. 10-2
#31 Mid-American – Northern Illinois 10-3
#NR WAC – Louisiana Tech 8-4

If you do this, ALL NON-conference games are meaningless...
ZERO meanin
A true preseason game.

[Russ]

For an 8 team playoff, someone posted
All conference champions in the top XXX get into the playoffs (top 12, top 15)
Remaining at-large bids by best available.

You still have to win your conference, but there is a way to sneak in with 1 loss (Bama, Stanford, AK this year)

[soonercoop1]

Remove the BCS and have a 12 team playoff where the bottom 8 play for 4 spots and the top 4 get byes...

[olevetonahill]

Theres 120 D1 teams. If yer gonna have a Play off then ALL of em in a ****in Conference. thats why I said 10 Con.s
No Independants , **** em IF they wanta Play fer a NC then join up

Myself I liked it better the Old way where we all sat around all News year Day drankin Beer watchin Football and rootin on whoever we needed to win so we could advance OUR chances
But thats just me

[OU_Sooners75]

Russ...
Did you not takethe time to read the entire op?

I said make all conferences even in number and determining their champion. I also said make conference realignment. That could mean that for football at least the sunbelt would have some meat thrown their way... Essentially making all conferences regional teams. None of this crap like Boise being in the big east or wvu being in the big
12.

[Caboose]

Remove the BCS and have a 12 team playoff where the bottom 8 play for 4 spots and the top 4 get byes...

There arent 12 teams at the end of the regular who deserve to be playing for the National Championship. So why would you do that? I thought the goal was have a system that generated a true champion on the field of play?

[goingoneight]

First and foremost... settle these ridiculous conference realignments. If you are located in Texas and are retarded enough to sign up for an east coast conference, so be it.

Six BCS conferences produce six conference champions. You HAVE TO WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO GET A PLAYOFF BERTH. This makes the regular season VERY important; even moreso than now from a broadened perspective. Like, right now... OUr conference is perceived as weak. We get an automatic bid for winning it, I'm pretty damn sure the team is less likely to lose focus after say, a one-loss season come November time. When they know they have a chance and aren't worried about votes and all of that billshut... well, you get the picture. The attitude is probably a hell of a lot more intense in all three of our losses this year if they knew they had a chance to win a championship and weren't worried about what LSU, Alabammer, OSU, etc were doing.

Now, you win your conference... YOUR B-C-S Conference (Hence the acronymic term "BCS"), you're in.

You get to go play in a small, six team playoff for all the marbles.

Now, two issues remain. One... what about the poor Boise States of the world? Well, IMHO... fugg'em. But in all seriousness, two at-large teams can be added to make it an 8-team playoff. Boise can beat a decent BCS team once, twice... can they run through a slate of Oklahoma, Florida State, Alabama on years that they aren't "meh" good? If they can, crown their asses.

Example:

PAC 12 Winnar: 3 SUC
BIG 12 Winnar: 2 OU
SEC Winnar: 1 Alabammer
BIG EAST Winnar: 6 Cincinnati
ACC Winnar: 5 FSU
B1G Winnar: 4 Meatchicken
At Large 1: 7 Boise State
At Large 2: 8 Tulsa

Game 1 = 1 v 8
Game 2 = 2 v 7
Game 3 = 3 v 6
Game 4 = 4 v 5

Re-seed/rank according to first round results. Hypothetically speaking, let's say the favored win. You have 1 Bammer, 2 OU, 3 USC and 4 Meatchicken.

Game 5 = 1 v 4
Game 6 = 2 v 3

And theeeeeeeeennnnn... #1 versus #2. I know, I know. There's still some favoritism showed and it's all about who you are and where you are as far as seeding goes. But I don't see an argument for OSU, Stanford, LSU or Bama in this case. If you're the best, it will show. Period. In the current system, you have a bunch of slack-jaws who assume whatever, but never truly know. Had we called the 2007 Fiesta Bowl at kickoff, we'd have won based on who we are. If we called it on kickoff in January 2001, Bob Stoops wouldn't have a National Championship. Think also about who might not have had one in recent years had they played outside their comfort zone and/or had to match up with another elite first.

[Caboose]

First and foremost... settle these ridiculous conference realignments. If you are located in Texas and are retarded enough to sign up for an east coast conference, so be it.

Six BCS conferences produce six conference champions. You HAVE TO WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO GET A PLAYOFF BERTH. This makes the regular season VERY important; even moreso than now from a broadened perspective. Like, right now... OUr conference is perceived as weak. We get an automatic bid for winning it, I'm pretty damn sure the team is less likely to lose focus after say, a one-loss season come November time. When they know they have a chance and aren't worried about votes and all of that billshut... well, you get the picture. The attitude is probably a hell of a lot more intense in all three of our losses this year if they knew they had a chance to win a championship and weren't worried about what LSU, Alabammer, OSU, etc were doing.

Now, you win your conference... YOUR B-C-S Conference (Hence the acronymic term "BCS"), you're in.

You get to go play in a small, six team playoff for all the marbles.

Now, two issues remain. One... what about the poor Boise States of the world? Well, IMHO... fugg'em. But in all seriousness, two at-large teams can be added to make it an 8-team playoff. Boise can beat a decent BCS team once, twice... can they run through a slate of Oklahoma, Florida State, Alabama on years that they aren't "meh" good? If they can, crown their asses.

Example:

PAC 12 Winnar: 3 SUC
BIG 12 Winnar: 2 OU
SEC Winnar: 1 Alabammer
BIG EAST Winnar: 6 Cincinnati
ACC Winnar: 5 FSU
B1G Winnar: 4 Meatchicken
At Large 1: 7 Boise State
At Large 2: 8 Tulsa

Game 1 = 1 v 8
Game 2 = 2 v 7
Game 3 = 3 v 6
Game 4 = 4 v 5

Re-seed/rank according to first round results. Hypothetically speaking, let's say the favored win. You have 1 Bammer, 2 OU, 3 USC and 4 Meatchicken.

Game 5 = 1 v 4
Game 6 = 2 v 3

And theeeeeeeeennnnn... #1 versus #2. I know, I know. There's still some favoritism showed and it's all about who you are and where you are as far as seeding goes. But I don't see an argument for OSU, Stanford, LSU or Bama in this case. If you're the best, it will show. Period. In the current system, you have a bunch of slack-jaws who assume whatever, but never truly know. Had we called the 2007 Fiesta Bowl at kickoff, we'd have won based on who we are. If we called it on kickoff in January 2001, Bob Stoops wouldn't have a National Championship. Think also about who might not have had one in recent years had they played outside their comfort zone and/or had to match up with another elite first.

Has there ever been 6 teams at the end of the regular season that are "tied" for number 1? There damn sure hasnt ever been 8.

Before anyone can consider your proposal please justify why we would have anywhere from 1 to 7 teams every year to compete for the national championship who dont deserve to?

[OU_Sooners75]

Caboose, please justify to us how the current bias system knows or shows that they get it right?

LSU vs BAMA was all but written in stone since OU lost to Tech. ESPN made sure of that!

The way the national champion is determined is not decided on the field of play... It is decided in Bristol, Connecticut.

Just because there is 2 undefeated teams doesnt necessarily mean they deserve a shot over a couPle 1 loss teams that have played a much tougher schedule.

Look at the SEC as an example. Every single one of them played a FCS team. And a few of them played two. They count on ESPN to hype the conference up, which ESPN pays a lot of money to do, in order to gain a perceptionthat it isthe best conference top to bottom. That crap is speculative.

My point, just because you go undefeated doesn't mean you necessarily deserve a shot. If so, then why didnt BOISE or UTAH play for a national championship when they were only undefeated teams those two years?

[SoonerMachine]

If you do this, ALL NON-conference games are meaningless...
ZERO meanin
A true preseason game.

Of course OOC games are important. All loses, whether OOC or conference will affect your final ranking and your chances in any playoff.

[the-rover]

We're getting closer.....

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16845961/emmert-supports-fourteam-playoff-in-football

INDIANAPOLIS -- NCAA President Mark Emmert would support a four-team playoff in college football -- as long as the field doesn't grow.

After giving his annual state of the association speech Thursday in Indianapolis, Emmert acknowledged he would back a small playoff if that's what Bowl Championship Series officials decide to adopt.

"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."

Emmert spoke two days after the 11 Bowl Championship Series conferences met to discuss possible changes to the system starting in 2014, but there is no consensus yet.

BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said Tuesday that 50-60 possibilities for various changes were presented during a deliberate meeting in New Orleans, where Alabama beat LSU in the BCS title game Monday night. Hancock anticipates it will take another five to seven meetings to reach a conclusion in July.

One possibility is the four-team playoff, or the so-called plus-one approach, that would create two national semifinals and a championship game played one week later. The original proposal, made in 2008 by the commissioners of the Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast Conference, was emphatically shot down by the leaders of the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12 and Notre Dame.

The BCS title game pits the nation's top two teams based on poll and computer rankings.

But momentum is clearly growing for a larger playoff system.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany acknowledged this week that he would now consider the prospect of a four-team field.

"Four years ago, five of us didn't want to have the conversation," Delany told reporters earlier this week. "Now we all want to have the conversation."

Then on Thursday, the BCS picked up another major endorsement for a potential playoff.

Emmert has long said he expected changes to the BCS system and has repeatedly offered to help the BCS debate if they want it. The NCAA licenses bowl games, but does not run them. It also has no direct authority over the BCS system.

But a small, four-team tournament could be the perfect remedy for what many still consider a flawed system.

"I see a lot of ways that a Final Four model could be successful," Emmert said.

[Sabanball]

I think we're definitely headed for a +1/4-team format playoff and my prediction is all the SEC-haters will be more unhappy with it's results than they are now with the current BCS system.

The SEC will not agree to a system that limits conferences to only one participant in the final 4--and they shouldn't.

[Tear Down This Wall]

(1) Have the Top 8 ranked non-SEC schools play one another
(2) The survivor of that bracket plays the SEC champion for the national title.

[BoulderSooner79]

1) Just give the crystal ball to the SEC.
2) Let them decide among themselves

[Russ]

(1) Have the Top 8 ranked non-SEC schools play one another
(2) The survivor of that bracket plays the SEC champion for the national title.

Hah... the SEC would still complain as they are only getting 1/2 of the final game and non of the 4/8 team tourney

[Russ]

Of course OOC games are important. All loses, whether OOC or conference will affect your final ranking and your chances in any playoff.

Then I call Texas State, North Texas, SFA and maybe someone as tough as Tulsa

[Sooners78]

8 team playoff (6 conference champions and 2 at large based solely on BCS ranking).
Conference champions all decided by the same rules.
BCS ranking determines homefield in playoffs until championship game which is on neutral field.
1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, ...
No conference championships.

1st round in early December. 2nd round before Christmas. Championship 2 weeks later at approximately New Year's Day(eliminates the long layoff).

A simple solution that everyone should be able to agree to, and all conferences should be happy about.

[Curly Bill]

8 team playoff (6 conference champions and 2 at large based solely on BCS ranking).
Conference champions all decided by the same rules.
BCS ranking determines homefield in playoffs until championship game which is on neutral field.
1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, ...
No conference championships.

1st round in early December. 2nd round before Christmas. Championship 2 weeks later at approximately New Year's Day(eliminates the long layoff).

A simple solution that everyone should be able to agree to, and all conferences should be happy about.

LOL...There's NOT a solution that everyone is going to agree upon, or will make everyone happy.

[StoopTroup]

8 team playoff (6 conference champions and 2 at large based solely on BCS ranking).
Conference champions all decided by the same rules.
BCS ranking determines homefield in playoffs until championship game which is on neutral field.
1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, ...
No conference championships.

1st round in early December. 2nd round before Christmas. Championship 2 weeks later at approximately New Year's Day(eliminates the long layoff).

A simple solution that everyone should be able to agree to, and all conferences should be happy about.

I'm gonna go a bit farther than Curly....

Where will these games be played? In the Bowls or on the At Large or higher BCS Ranked Teams Home Fields? It's a pretty big deal. Lots of money going to people that didn't get it before or you are saying that they are all going to agree to take the hit on Millions of dollars and the yearly tradition that so many Cities lay claim to each year in running these Bowl Games?

Clearly it's not as you say ''A simple solution that everyone should be able to agree to, and all conferences should be happy about.''

There would be so much money changing hands and lawsuits...probably even State Senators weighing in and demanding Hearings in DC about why this is all occurring and who is going to be the benefactor in your scenario...

[Sooners78]

Go ahead and have your lousy bowls for the teams that are not in the 8 team playoff. Playoff would be home field until championship game. That game could rotate like the Super Bowl does now. It should not be rotated just between L.A., New Orleans, Phoenix, and Miami as it is now. Let cities like Dallas, Seattle, Detroit, and Houston in on the bidding.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be unhappy people, just answering the original poster's question. And, letting in a team from each conference should at least make each conference happy.

The most important thing for college football fans like myself is for a champion to be crowned fairly based on performance on the field.

[jkjsooner]

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)


I don't hate this idea but I would say that there is no chance that the independents (specifically Notre Dame) would agree to such a format. This effectively gives conference members two shots at meeting the criteria and independents only one shot.

According to the figures you published, an independent almost always has to ben in the top 5 to make it with the lowest over that period being #8. Meanwhile, conference champions would have gotten in being ranked #14 several times and several others were ranked 10 or below.

You're essentially telling Notre Dame that they're going to be treated on equal footing as teams who failed to win their conference. They're not going for that.


We've argued this before but I need to state my opinion again. The arguments that xxx "didn't win their conference" ring hollow to me. Conference membership is voluntary and its primary purpose is administrative (ease schedule creating, improve marketing and revenue, share officiating crews, etc) and a secondary purpose is to crown a champion. Other than having some automatic births in large tounaments like basketball, conference affiliation is pretty much outside the scope of the NCAA. I personally feel it should be outside the scope of any NCAA sanctioned championship.


And that brings me to my main point. If anything, I'd like the NCAA to step up and take an active role in crowning a champion. It's ridiculous to me that schools join these agreements such as the BCS agreement to crown a "BCS champion".

If the subjectivity in selecting the BCS top 2 challenges the legitimacy of a champion, I would argue that a system designed a agreed upon by only a subset of the NCAA 1A schools also challenges the legitimacy of the champion.

I want a playoff but a playoff agreed to by the BCS does not go far enough in my book. The NCAA needs to play an active role and declare an official champion once and for all.

[jkjsooner]

BTW, when arguing against conference affiliation playing a role in the national title chase, a thought came to my mind. Since conference affiliation is pretty much outside the scope of the NCAA or FBS, it could conceivably be possible for one school to join more than one conference in the same sport.

I think it would kick arse - especially if conferences were 5 or fewer teams. Let's say OU joined a conference with OSU, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. This conference would make their own TV contracts, revenue sharing rules, scheduling, etc. in addition to crowing their champion.

Then let's say OU also joined a conference with Arkansas, LSU, Missouri, Mississippi, and Mississippi State. (Those teams would also have conference affiliations with other current SEC schools.) This conference (or whatever you wanted to call it) would also independently handle TV contracts, revenue sharing, scheduling, etc.

One reason I think this would kick butt is because large conferences generally create some unnatural rivalries. While the Big 12 made a lot of sense for OU, it made less sense for Nebraska and UT. We had a natural tie to both the old Big 8 schools and the new SWC schools.

With teams joining multiple conferences, they could better control their associations. Nebraska could remain associated with OU but join a new allegience to midwest teams.


Or, maybe even a better system is to have small conferences like the above and then year-by-year alignments where two of these conferences would join together to make one temporary alliance. For example, the Big 12 South would comprise one conference. The SEC West would comprise another. By agreement, the Big 12 South would agree to join up with the SEC West for one year.


Yep, I know I'm out in left field now.

[Russ]

BTW, when arguing against conference affiliation playing a role in the national title chase, a thought came to my mind. Since conference affiliation is pretty much outside the scope of the NCAA or FBS, it could conceivably be possible for one school to join more than one conference in the same sport.

I think it would kick arse - especially if conferences were 5 or fewer teams. Let's say OU joined a conference with OSU, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. This conference would make their own TV contracts, revenue sharing rules, scheduling, etc. in addition to crowing their champion.

Then let's say OU also joined a conference with Arkansas, LSU, Missouri, Mississippi, and Mississippi State. (Those teams would also have conference affiliations with other current SEC schools.) This conference (or whatever you wanted to call it) would also independently handle TV contracts, revenue sharing, scheduling, etc.

One reason I think this would kick butt is because large conferences generally create some unnatural rivalries. While the Big 12 made a lot of sense for OU, it made less sense for Nebraska and UT. We had a natural tie to both the old Big 8 schools and the new SWC schools.

With teams joining multiple conferences, they could better control their associations. Nebraska could remain associated with OU but join a new allegience to midwest teams.


Or, maybe even a better system is to have small conferences like the above and then year-by-year alignments where two of these conferences would join together to make one temporary alliance. For example, the Big 12 South would comprise one conference. The SEC West would comprise another. By agreement, the Big 12 South would agree to join up with the SEC West for one year.


Yep, I know I'm out in left field now.

I like it...

[SoonerorLater]

I'll pick the champion each year. Case closed.

[SoonerMachine]

I don't hate this idea but I would say that there is no chance that the independents (specifically Notre Dame) would agree to such a format. This effectively gives conference members two shots at meeting the criteria and independents only one shot.

According to the figures you published, an independent almost always has to ben in the top 5 to make it with the lowest over that period being #8. Meanwhile, conference champions would have gotten in being ranked #14 several times and several others were ranked 10 or below.

You're essentially telling Notre Dame that they're going to be treated on equal footing as teams who failed to win their conference. They're not going for that.

Agreed. In the fine print (that I didn't post) I made an exception that if an independent finished in the top 8 (like in 2005) then they're in. Thanks for your input!

[Dwight]

Say you are Bill Hancock, how would you pursue changing the BCS to make it less controversial?

Me... I would push for a playoff first and foremost. I would also push for change in conference alignment. Make it where all conferences were equal in teams and determining their champion. Say for example, ten 12 team conferences (yes Notre Dame you have to be in a conference) with a championship game pitting the top two teams against each other, not divisional champions.

After that I would make the playoff be a 10 team playoff with seedings done by a committee of knowledgeable people, not rankings. The top 6 teams would get a bye the first week.

First round: game1: 7 vs 10; game2: 8 vs 9.
Second round: game3: 1 vs g2w; game4: 2 vs g1w; game5: 3 vs 6; game6: 4 vs 5.
Third (semi finals) round: game7: g3w vs g6w; game8: g4w vs g5w.
Championship round: game9: g7w vs g8w.


If my purposal couldn't get passed I would agree to:
1. No more automatic qualifiers.
2. Top 4 teams would have to be at least divisional champion (including tie) unless independent.
3. Top 8 teams are in BCS, regardless of conference alignment.
4. Plus one playoff. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Winners play each other. To determine champions.

This is the main thing that needs to happen.

[PLaw]

For years now, I've wanted to take the 119 teams into 10 conferences. Take the 10 conf champs, plus 6 at large, and go tee it up.

Round of 16 - higher seed home

Round of 8 - BCS bowls

Round of 4 - higher seed home

Championship - Jerry World becomes the Omaha of college football.

Booooyahhhhhh.

Boomer

[the-rover]

I think they should have a "smear the queer" tournament to decide the champion.

[SoonerSpock]

Nothing! While I support keeping the system as it presently is because that is what is best for OU football it is a system that is not best for CFB in general. If any change is necessary then I would support only the plus one concept.

As stated above a playoff system may be what is best for college football but it is not what is best for OU football. During the 2000-2008 period OU played for the BCS championship 4 times winning once. With an eight team playoff OU would have been fortunate to have made the title game once and perhaps would not made it at all. For certain making the championship twice would have been a glowing achievement by the Sooners.

The BCS system most definitely favors the traditional football powers and with the Sooners being a consist top 5 programs they are one of the major benefactors of the system. I want the Sooners to continue to have every advantage possible necessary to win the championship and that is the BCS system as it is today.

[I Am Right]

Nothing except take the media out of the equation

[MamaMia]

My solution would involve trading the non conference games for a playoff

[CowboyMRW]

Haven't read the entire thread so my apologies if posted but what about an 11 team playoff. Top 5 teams get byes with the other 6 playing. Afterthat you have an 8 team playoff where you can re-seed and play with the 8 teams.

With a playoff, I think the SEC loses their reign, as some of the offenses that lose that polish after 6 weeks off, will be able to retain it and be able to put up a lot of points on the SEC defenses

[oudavid1]

Playoff? Instead of teams do everything they can to not lose once, now we will see teams like LSU and Arkansas just trying not lose three time.

[CowboyMRW]

Playoff? Instead of teams do everything they can to not lose once, now we will see teams like LSU and Arkansas just trying not lose three time.

That's why you keep the playoffs to a small number of teams. 3 loss teams would not make it, nor should they.

[Spray]

Okay, I only scanned all of this, but enough with the argument that only 3-4 teams each year are deserving. There is not near enough interplay among the conferences to even make this determination. For all we know, out of the past 100 years the number 6 final poll team might have been the best 7 or 8 times. Nobody friggin knows. You're just making the same assumption the pollsters do. 85-man scholarship limits make this even more tenable. And God knows what an 80 scholarship limit would do. The talent is spread out already. That would further level an already pretty level playing field.

[ouwasp]

Been in favor of a playoff since OU finished #3 in three consecutive yrs ('78-80)!

I'd like an 8 team playoff, and we may eventually get there, but we'll probably have to start with the plus-one that the powers-that-be are so graciously considering.

BUT... the strength of schedule component needs to be part of the BCS formula again. That would hopefully encourage some of the powers to schedule meaningful ooc games.

[StoopTroup]

My solution will be announced once hell freezes over and oSu does indeed win a MNC as I will then know that there is something seriously wrong with College Football.

[oudavid1]

That's why you keep the playoffs to a small number of teams. 3 loss teams would not make it, nor should they.

We have had a two loss team win the BCS. We could defiantly have 3 and 4 loss teams in a playoff. Oregon lost twice this year, they dont deserve a championship appearance. It just wouldnt be worth it.

[the-rover]

We have had a two loss team win the BCS. We could defiantly have 3 and 4 loss teams in a playoff. Oregon lost twice this year, they dont deserve a championship appearance. It just wouldnt be worth it.

If UCLA would have somehow beaten USC, we could have had a 6 loss team in a playoff in some of these scenerios.....

[jkjsooner]

The BCS system most definitely favors the traditional football powers and with the Sooners being a consist top 5 programs they are one of the major benefactors of the system. I want the Sooners to continue to have every advantage possible necessary to win the championship and that is the BCS system as it is today.

It does favor traditional football powers but don't count on it always favoring us. If we go through a down stretch and then have a great year we could easily be left out. Had there been two other undefeated teams in 2000, there would have been a very good chance that we would have been left out - even considering our stretch of beating top 5 teams in three straight games.

[StoopTroup]

It does favor traditional football powers but don't count on it always favoring us. If we go through a down stretch and then have a great year we could easily be left out. Had there been two other undefeated teams in 2000, there would have been a very good chance that we would have been left out - even considering our stretch of beating top 5 teams in three straight games.

I agree. When we went to four of them it was when we had a Conference Championship in the Big XII and a BCS Deal. Now that we only have 9 or 10 in our Conference, we may not have the same ability to get into the Big Game. Actually a Playoff might benefit us because of the Teams who were unhappy with their Conference Deals. Folks need to think about this too as the Teams that left never had a chance at the MNC. If Missouri could have beaten us at Arrowhead the year Sam won the Heisman they might have possibly played Phlorida I guess. I'd have to go back and review the BCS points to see if they would have gone on to play phlorida instead of us as I've slept since then.

[Sooners78]

For years now, I've wanted to take the 119 teams into 10 conferences. Take the 10 conf champs, plus 6 at large, and go tee it up.

Round of 16 - higher seed home

Round of 8 - BCS bowls

Round of 4 - higher seed home

Championship - Jerry World becomes the Omaha of college football.Booooyahhhhhh.

Boomer

I love this part of your proposal. We should get a chance to play a few championship games in front of a home crowd. We've certainly had more than our share of getting the short end of that stick.

[8timechamps]

Here's the best option:

16 team playoff, with every round played at the higher ranked team's home field...except the championship...that goes to a different venue every year.

Keep whatever bowls you want, but don't include them in the playoff.

Simple.

[MamaMia]

You all do realize that whats been preventing any steps made toward a playoff system has been halted by the universities Deans? Its their contention that it takes away from the football players ability to meet their scholastic responsibilities. Unless we sacrifice the non conference games and start the season with conference play, there will never be a playoff.

[8timechamps]

You all do realize that whats been preventing any steps made toward a playoff system has been halted by the universities Deans? Its their contention that it takes away from the football players ability to meet their scholastic responsibilities. Unless we sacrifice the non conference games and start the season with conference play, there will never be a playoff.

Mama, that's not true. The FCS and D3 both do it, and have no problems. Also, basketball, baseball and softball take the student-athletes away from class far more than football does. It may be the Dean's argument, but if it is, then it's without merit. The real reason is that the BCS loves the money and control. They don't want to give up either of those things.

[SoonerMachine]

Who actually owns the BCS? Who gets the cash? Not who has the rights to it (ESPN).

[8timechamps]

Who actually owns the BCS? Who gets the cash? Not who has the rights to it (ESPN).

The BCS owns the BCS. It's a not-for-profit organization (yeah, right). The cash generated by the bowls gets paid out (barely) from the bowls. The BCS takes a cut to pay it's (outrageous) expenses.