"The BCS is like communism"

[St. Francisco]

I'm going to attempt to avoid a debate with FirstTimer and JeremyHeight on this subject...our opinions are very clear, from the MM debates.

I say you take the top eight teams, and seed them. First round in the BCS bowls, two more semi-final games after that, and then the BCS national championship game. Really, the only thing that has to happen for this to work would be to dissolve the current automatic bids that conferences get in the BCS bowls, and add two games. That's it. All of the non-playoff schools keep their bowls. Also, I don't care how you pick them...committee, BCS, some new-fangled polling system. Don't give a fuck. But I feel the BCS does a decent job at determining the cream of the crop in football. However, anytime two teams out of 120 are the only ones given a chance at the national title, the system is seriously flawed.

On the subject of all conference champions...it's ridiculous. First off, anything over eight teams does in fact begin to water down the regular season. I'd be ok with a four or six team playoff, but eight is the magic number for me. You would include all of your major players nearly every year. Secondly, anyone who thinks Tulsa, Navy, Troy, and Buffalo deserve a playoff spot over Texas, Alabama, Ohio St., Texas Tech, etc. just because they managed to win their shitty conference is laughable. THIS IS NOT THE NFL, NOT ALL CONFERENCES ARE CREATED EQUAL. Hence the reason we have at-large bids in the BCS bowls. At-large bids are necessary to ensure the best teams in the country are given a playoff shot. That's what this should be about. And for those saying the 12 conference champions is fair...no it's not. It's not fair to reward a non-BCS team for playing a shitty schedule and winning a shitty conference over a team like Texas. Besides, if you want to get 100% truly fair about, we should just throw all 120 teams in a playoff. Let's not get ridiculous about this.

The whole point of a playoff is to walk a fine line between maintaining the integrity and passion of the regular season while create a fair system for determining a national champion.

[Sven Draconian]

How are playoffs inherintly better simply because it's a playoff? A playoff plan can be as dumb and as poorly run as the BCS. Simply "having" a playoff doesn't make the situation better. It depends on what kind.

Playoffs are better simply because they are playoffs. This should not be debated. I don't care if the plan is dumb and poorly run, it is better than the BCS. Why? Playoffs provide more meaningful games than the BCS (which provides exactly one).

It could be a 64 team tounry, it could be a +1, it could just teams that start with M-Q and it would be better than the BCS.

Bowl games=scrimmage. Its unfortunate, but true.

With the amount of bowl games they play, making a bowl is no longer meaningful. The effort just isn't their as a whole. The huge layoff, the looming combine/senior bowl (for some).

What is the motivation for the alamo bowl? The Gator bowl. The capital one bowl. It's not some great honor to get invited. It's 5 weeks of extra practice to play in a scrimmage. (Well, and a vacation).

For a major program, those bowl games are consilation prizes. You're gunning for a conference title and a national championship. You lose the conf championship game...and you're reward is the cotton bowl. AWESOME. The players don't give two shits about that game.

Watch the passion and energy of a March Maddness game, and then watch the International Bowl.

[Awesometrax]

Here would be my plan:

First of all, force the Independents to join a conference, and that includes Notre Dame.

My system would have 16 teams in the playoff, with the 11 conference winners and 5 at-large bids.

Every conference would also be forced to have a championship game to determine who gets an automatic berth to the playoff.

The first round games would be at the site of the higher seed. Every round the teams would then re-seed, like in the NHL and NFL playoffs. However, in the second round, only the two highest seeds remaining would get home games, the other two games would be played at a neutral site (preferably one of the BCS game sites). This way, there is an incentive to having one of the top two seeds. (Eg. if all the higher seeds win the first game, in the 1 vs. 8 and 2 vs. 7 games, it would be at the higher seed's home, while 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5 would be at a neutral site) And in the semifinals, only the top seed would have a home game, while the other game would be at another neutral BCS game site (Eg. 1 vs. 4 would be at the 1 seed's home, while 2 vs. 3 would be at a neutral site). This giving an incentive to have the #1 overall seed. The final would then be played at a neutral site.

Thoughts?

[Bmore]

I think a good idea would be where you take the 6 main conferences and automatically have the conference champions be entered in the tournament. Then you take two other teams from any conference like Utah or say a team in the SEC that had a very god season but couldnt win the Conference.
So something like this
ACC winner
SEC winner
Big 12 winner
Big East winner
Big Ten winner
Pac Ten winner
At large team
At large team

Of course any idea will have some problems but I think this could be a good idea.

]
What about the WAC and Conference USA?

[St. Francisco]

]
What about the WAC and Conference USA?

Not sure if sarcasm...

[Bmore]

Not sure if sarcasm...

Nah, No sarcasm.

I only say these two conferences, because their presidents are the ones that are really pushing the playoff system.

So if there was a playoff system added and there winners didn't get a auto bid... They'd be pissed cuz they were the main ones that wanted it...

Obviously the ACC's president doesn't want a tourny cuz, he is also the president of the BCS... lol

[1ke]

The edless debate. I agree with all that its needed. Im in favor for 4 teams, and im in favor of 16 teams. I could care less as everyone else should anout the stupid bowl games or the fabric of NCAA football.

The bowl games allowed themselves to become a joke when on Dec 3rd or whatever, I have to watch the 5th place Sun Belt team vs the 6th place Big 12 team. Why anyone wastes their time on any bowl games before Dec 29th is beyond me.

I like all the ideas, the only thing i would say differently is to seed the playoff teams by their conference strength. USC may be the best team but they might be a middle seed because of the Pac-10. Therefore conference winners from tougher conferences will be rewarded.

[Liquidrob]

get rid of the regular season all together

just start a single elimination tournament from week 1, you lose your season is done, even if its the first game

only fair way to do it

[CrimsonGhost56]

^ lol who the hell is that in your sig?

[FirstTimer]

Top 6 conference champions with the top 2 teams getting a bye. Anything more would just shit in the face of college football. I laugh at people who put the Sun Belt champion in, though, lol.

Would never happen. The smaller conferences are the ones bitching so any system that doesn't include them would never get through.

Also, I laugh at a system that would exclude a program like ND having no shot at winning a Nat'l Title. ie..the one you just posted.

I'm going to attempt to avoid a debate with FirstTimer and JeremyHeight on this subject...our opinions are very clear, from the MM debates.

I say you take the top eight teams, and seed them. First round in the BCS bowls, two more semi-final games after that, and then the BCS national championship game. Really, the only thing that has to happen for this to work would be to dissolve the current automatic bids that conferences get in the BCS bowls, and add two games. That's it. All of the non-playoff schools keep their bowls. Also, I don't care how you pick them...committee, BCS, some new-fangled polling system. Don't give a fuck. But I feel the BCS does a decent job at determining the cream of the crop in football. However, anytime two teams out of 120 are the only ones given a chance at the national title, the system is seriously flawed.

Well technically I would argue every team to start the season has a shot at the NC. The way the schedule plays out and who wins and who loses in more ways determines the title. The smaller schools obviously have a tougher time but I think the first step with all this is to eliminate preseason rankings.

On the subject of all conference champions...it's ridiculous. First off, anything over eight teams does in fact begin to water down the regular season. I'd be ok with a four or six team playoff, but eight is the magic number for me. You would include all of your major players nearly every year. Secondly, anyone who thinks Tulsa, Navy, Troy, and Buffalo deserve a playoff spot over Texas, Alabama, Ohio St., Texas Tech, etc. just because they managed to win their shitty conference is laughable. THIS IS NOT THE NFL, NOT ALL CONFERENCES ARE CREATED EQUAL. Hence the reason we have at-large bids in the BCS bowls.

The entire point of this movement to change the BCS is based on the idea and complaint that the smaller conferences don't feel they have an equal shot as the rest of the teams in the country. If you are going to give them a truly "equal" shot this is the only way to do it. You may not care about the smaller conferences but the AD's and commissioners of these conferences care and apparently so does Congress now so it has to be taken into consideration.

As far as the NFL stuff goes it's not an apt comparison because if you have at larges in college football getting in they are chosing by a subjective system. The conference champs, and even wild cards in the NFL are chosen based strictly on on the field objective results. You can't defend subjectivly choosing at larges in college by pointing to a completely objective on the field determined process like the way the NFL chooses playoff teams.

At-large bids are necessary to ensure the best teams in the country are given a playoff shot. That's what this should be about. And for those saying the 12 conference champions is fair...no it's not. It's not fair to reward a non-BCS team for playing a shitty schedule and winning a shitty conference over a team like Texas.

Tough shit for Texas but the fact remains week in and week out the system insures that each team controls it's own destiny. Not the pollsters or some convoluted system.

Here would be my plan:

First of all, force the Independents to join a conference, and that includes Notre Dame.

Would never happen and if it did they would have to ensure ND can keep it's TV contract. Tough sell.

Nah, No sarcasm.

I only say these two conferences, because their presidents are the ones that are really pushing the playoff system.

So if there was a playoff system added and there winners didn't get a auto bid... They'd be pissed cuz they were the main ones that wanted it...

Obviously the ACC's president doesn't want a tourny cuz, he is also the president of the BCS... lol

Agreed and good point.

You people and your 16 team playoff systems. You guys do realize that would require sweeping changes in the fabric of college football.

Take the top 4 conference champions from the BCS rankings. The two semi-final games are played in existing BCS bowl games, and then the National Title game can be played a week or two later.

See...a system that decides the national champion on the field, doesn't take away from the pageantry of the regular season, and fits into the current schedule. What more could you want?

Keeping the current BCS in place this is the only system I agree with. Top 4 conference champs in the BCS. Seems good enough to me.