TCU should get a real national championship game vs. Auburn/Oregon

[Rayman]

Which is also illogical because of the amount of money they could make through a playoff, but it is what it is.

Oh, it's logical.

Follow the money.

[Colonel Angus]

Come on guys. Wisconsin isn't that good.

[BrntO4Life]

Might as well just end this thread before it begins.

JeremyHight: Pro BCS bullshit.. or give me a +1 system

Everyone Else With Common Sense: 8 team playoff

That was easy.

8 team playoff? Fuck that.

If we're gonna have a playoff, I want 64 teams in there. That gives me six solid weeks of meaningful matchups. Start the last week of November and end the first week of January.

[mcstl25]

In what other sport can you go undefeated and not be the champion? College football is a joke, and I'll continue to be only mildly interested in the sport until they do something about the BCS. Every other level of professional and college football has a playoff system, it's time to get it done.

[FirstTimer]

Wisconsin was #5. And please don't give me the "Stanford didn't win their conference" excuse, because neither did Wisconsin, really.

Won't be an issue in years moving forward with a B10 CC.

[JeremyHight]

Wisconsin was #5. And please don't give me the "Stanford didn't win their conference" excuse, because neither did Wisconsin, really.

To make the regular season stay important, I always say that conference champions only should be allowed into any playoff. By taking in a small amount of teams that are only conference champions, you keep regular season games being very important, while still prioritizing having a hard schedule.

If you let in Stanford, you are basically saying that Stanford losing to Oregon shouldn't matter at all. So a matchup between two top 4 teams in the regular season has nearly zero impact on the championship other than seeding. All that says to me is that if 2 top 4 teams can play eachother and it would have ZERO impact, there is something deeply flawed in that system.

I say make every conference play a pure round robin (everyone plays everyone else) if they are at 11 teams or less and have them play a conference championship if they are at 12 teams or more. That way, it is a true playoff based on the regular season results.

[mgoblue2290]

So what if a team absolutely dominates regular season conference play and goes 12-0 but they lose in the conference championship to a team thats say, 8-4 or 9-3 or something. So that 12-1 team is being excluded from the playoff because they lost one game, while another team who lost 3 or 4 games but happened to play in a weaker division of that conference is making the playoff, that doesn't seem fair to me. I realize you're going to say well that 3/4 loss team was better that day, but what about the teams who beat them? Aren't they technically better? The conference championship argument leaves the possibility for an undeserving team or two to sneak in.

For the most part if you're in the top 8, you're probably winning your conference and are deserving of a playoff spot. A playoff should be about the best teams playing each other, not exclusively conference winners. You can't honestly believe UConn would be more deserving than Stanford or Ohio State.

8 teams, keep the BCS formula if thats the compromise we have to make to determine seeding. Like someone said in another thread, I'd much rather argue about whose more deserving to be the 8 seed, than who should play in the national championship game.

[JeremyHight]

So what if a team absolutely dominates regular season conference play and goes 12-0 but they lose in the conference championship to a team thats say, 8-4 or 9-3 or something. So that 12-1 team is being excluded from the playoff because they lost one game, while another team who lost 3 or 4 games but happened to play in a weaker division of that conference is making the playoff, that doesn't seem fair to me.

That wouldn't happen in my scenario (unless it was an absolutely fluky year in which the top ten of the final BCS was filled with 3-4 loss teams).

I said the top 4 conference champions. So this year, it would be Auburn, Oregon, TCU, and Wisconsin (although they'd be forced to play a round robin or conference championship in my setup). If Auburn had lost to South Carolina, South Carolina wouldn't have gotten in automatically since they aren't among the top 4 conference champions. Instead, it would have gone to Oklahoma.

And for those of us with short memory, look up the history on teams who didn't win their conference in title games. Nebraska and Oklahoma come to mind and both lost.

[NAHSTE]

Won't be an issue in years moving forward with a B10 CC.

I know, and it's about time. But this year, Wisconsin was #5, not #4, and didn't win their conference outright.

If you let in Stanford, you are basically saying that Stanford losing to Oregon shouldn't matter at all.

And if you let in Wisconsin, you are basically saying that losing to Michigan State shouldn't matter at all.

[Fox1994]

Oh, it's logical.

Follow the money.

I think they could garner more interest, and so more money, with a playoff.

[FirstTimer]

And if you let in Wisconsin, you are basically saying that losing to Michigan State shouldn't matter at all.

No he's not. Wiscy losing to Mich State could have mattered had the polling come out differently. The game obviously matters because had Wiscy not lost to Mich State they would have been ranked higher than #5 and more than likely would have been in the 2 v 3 match up rather than the 1 v 4. Also, in all fairness to JHights plan the issue isn't with his idea so much as it was/is with the B10 not have a CCG. Starting next season that's not an issue so harping on the Wisconsin situation is kind of missing the point.

[PP]

I am fine with a 4 team playoff.. 8 is too many for me. 6 might work too where the top 2 teams in the standings get 1st round byes.

I think a 4 team playoff pretty much kills off most of the issues with the BCS anyways but I guess people will still find a way to argue that some team with 2 losses ranked 7th in the country should be the NC.

[Rayman]

I think they could garner more interest, and so more money, with a playoff.

More money for everyone involved, yes.

But the way the system works now, the vast (and that's an understatement) majority of the money being made goes only to certain people. I'll let you guess who they are.

Again, follow the money.

[JeremyHight]

And think about this for next season. The following conferences will have CCGs or play a pure round robin (everyone plays everyone else)...

ACC
SEC
Big Ten
MWC (I believe)
Big East
Big XII
Sun Belt (I believe)
Conference USA
WAC

So all of those conferences will have CLEAR conference champions, no split championships like the Big Ten has been handing out. As such, you will easily be able to see the top 4 conference champions and quickly seed them for a playoff.

* Why not let in teams who didn't win their conference? They can be good, too!

They most certainly can be solid teams, no one can doubt that. But it also makes their play in the regular season matter less. This year, Stanford lost to Oregon by 21 points. If they were let in, that 21 point loss in their only game against an opponent ranked in the top 25 wouldn't matter at all. They could have lost by 5 touchdowns, it wouldn't have mattered since they still get in the playoff. When 2 teams ranked in the top 4 play each other and the impact on the championship is absolutely nothing, then there is a clear problem.

* Why not let in 8, 16, 32, or more teams? March Madness is fun to watch!

The more teams you let in, the less the regular season matters and the less likely you will see big time matchups. Ohio State and Stanford played 1 ranked team each all year and lost that game. Why would they schedule anyone good out of conference if they can play horrible teams at home (with large paydays), lose 1-2 games in conference, and still get in the playoff?

Not only that, but the more you start adding teams, the less and less regular season games matter. Ohio State gets a pass despite losing their only game against a ranked opponent. Stanford gets in despite not beating a single ranked team. Arkansas couldn't even win its division, but would get in. Why even play a regular season if teams are able to throw out 2+ games every year that they lose?

* But the BCS formula is flawed, why would anyone use it for a playoff?

It is flawed, definitely. I would replace the Coaches' Poll with the AP Poll and allow computer rankings to use whatever formula they like. Currently, having coaches with obvious bias influence the polls is ridiculous. Also, forcing computer rankings to change their formula is also stupid if you want the most accurate rankings from them. I would use 40% AP, 40% Harris, and 20% Computers in the new system.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm always amused by this "but, but, we have to keep the regular season important!" argument.

As i've proven time and time again, an 8 team playoff makes MORE regular season games MATTER, not LESS.

Due to the current setup, college football is the sport, with BY FAR, the highest percentage of meaningless games of any major sport. And it isnt even close.