How a College Football playoff would look in 2010 if I was in charge

[Cryolemon]

I don't really know why I'm posting this because it's likely to cause a shit-storm, but oh well.

My idea for a playoff is that you can keep the polls and keep the bowl sponsorships while still having an 8 team playoff (all the other bowls can stay for non-playoff teams too).

How it would work is that the top 8 teams (maximum of 2 per conference) would have a straight knockout tournament.

Based on the latest BCS standings:

#1 Auburn - SEC
#2 Oregon - P10
#3 TCU - MWC
#4 Stanford - P10
#5 Wisconsin - B10
#6 OSU - B10
#7 Arkansas - SEC
#8 MSU - B10 - miss out because of "2 per conference" rule.
#9 Oklahoma - B12

This leaves a first round of:

#1 Auburn - #9 Oklahoma - Fiesta Bowl
#2 Oregon - #7 Arkansas - Cotton Bowl
#3 TCU - #6 Ohio State - Outback Bowl
#4 Stanford - #5 Wisconsin - Capital One Bowl

Semi-finals:

#1 / #9 vs #4 / #5 - Orange Bowl
#2 / #7 vs #3 / #6 - Sugar Bowl

Final

Two winners - Rose bowl.

Obviously, this would end some of the bowl's attachment to certain conferences, but I don't think that matters massively.

[mcstl25]

I think this solution makes way too much sense. There's no place for something like this in college football.

[mgoblue2290]

BUT DEY DIDNT WIN DER CONFENCE!!11

[JeremyHight]

I've always said the top 4 conference champions is the easiest way to do it and makes it so that the regular season (ie. winning your conference) is still very important. This year, it would be

1 Auburn vs 4 Wisconsin
2 Oregon vs 3 TCU

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season.

[Cryolemon]

I've always said the top 4 conference champions is the easiest way to do it and makes it so that the regular season (ie. winning your conference) is still very important. This year, it would be

1 Auburn vs 4 Wisconsin
2 Oregon vs 3 TCU

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season.

Certainly that is a reasonable compromise if 8 teams is seen as too many or whatever.

What would the top 8 conference champs give?

[JeremyHight]

What would the top 8 conference champs give?

1 Auburn
2 Oregon
3 TCU
4 Wisconsin
5 Oklahoma
6 Boise
7 Virginia Tech
8. Unranked Champion

Ya... that would be pretty bad. Top 4 works pretty well since it make sure the team is in the top 10 (normally) and won their conference. When you start going to more, you have the chance like in this case of getting an unranked conference champion. It is the same flaw the BCS has right now with automatic bids.

[mgoblue2290]

1 Auburn
2 Oregon
3 TCU
4 Wisconsin
5 Oklahoma
6 Boise
7 Virginia Tech
8. Unranked Champion

Ya... that would be pretty bad. Top 4 works pretty well since it make sure the team is in the top 10 (normally) and won their conference. When you start going to more, you have the chance like in this case of getting an unranked conference champion. It is the same flaw the BCS has right now with automatic bids.

You'd have a tough time convincing every other conference to go with that. In typical NCAA fashion it will probably be a little to much and they'll go 16 teams. 11 conference winners, I believe, 5 at large teams. To me though, this is still better than the BCS.

[JeremyHight]

You'd have a tough time convincing every other conference to go with that. In typical NCAA fashion it will probably be a little to much and they'll go 16 teams. 11 conference winners, I believe, 5 at large teams. To me though, this is still better than the BCS.

I'd rather the BCS than a lot of playoff options. While I prefer a playoff, a bad playoff is worse since they won't ever shrink it, they'll only expand it to include more underqualified teams.

[St. Francisco]

We're on the same level Cryo, minus the two per conference rule (which isn't a bad idea, now that I think about it). I think taking the top eight teams according to the BCS rankings is the best option, but I'd be ok with a four-team playoff if that's all we could get.

[NAHSTE]

Pretty much what I suggested last week. It's not perfect, but it's the most reasonable thing to shoot for.

I'd still prefer just a straight 4-teamer but 8 might be necessary to satisfy the "outsiders".

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season

And OU didn't have a blah season, they won the Big XII in a year in which 4 or 5 teams were pretty good. If they don't belong in a playoff, they'll get bounced in round 1. What's the harm in letting them enter?

[Cryolemon]

One reason I'm not convinced that it should be tied to conference champions is because of the independent teams. ND wouldn't be too pleased with any system that shut them out.

[Bear Pand]

Two per conference rule sucks, but won't be necessary once conferences get championship games and play better schedules. There's 3 Big 10 teams in the top 8 right now and the main reason is the shitty Big 10 schedule.

I'd also want 4, but 8 would be ok.

[Hasselbeck]

I've always said the top 4 conference champions is the easiest way to do it and makes it so that the regular season (ie. winning your conference) is still very important. This year, it would be

1 Auburn vs 4 Wisconsin
2 Oregon vs 3 TCU

I still don't see why a team like Oklahoma should get a shot at the title after a blah season.

They'd be the last team in.. if the last team in runs the gauntlet over Auburn, Wisconsin and Oregon .. they deserve the title.

This part of the argument is so painfully stupid and yet you cling to it. It's like if the 8-8 NFC West champion Rams or Seahawks rattle off 4 straight wins and win the Super Bowl .. does that mean they don't deserve it? Of course not.

[NAHSTE]

Fuck the Big Ten scheduling, that we can agree on. Glad they're getting it fixed pronto. Can't wait til Bo Pelini makes that conference his bitch. The fact that the new 10-member Big 12 will play 9 conference games is huge. No more 'claimed a share of the title' bullshit.

[Bear Pand]

They'd be the last team in.. if the last team in runs the gauntlet over Auburn, Wisconsin and Oregon .. they deserve the title.

This part of the argument is so painfully stupid and yet you cling to it. It's like if the 8-8 NFC West champion Rams or Seahawks rattle off 4 straight wins and win the Super Bowl .. does that mean they don't deserve it? Of course not.

You could use this same logic to let any team in, which is the problem. The same argument works for a 16 team field or a 32 team field. Let's say you want a playoff format where 16 teams and every conference champ gets in. If FIU gets in for winning the Sun Belt and runs the gauntlet then yeah I'd guess they'd deserve it. But they're 6-6, the line has to be drawn somewhere and the regular season should still mean something. Plus FIU would make the playoffs over several better teams just because they won a shit conference.