Playoff System....

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:22 am

I had a great idea for a College Playoff System. I gave the proposal to my second cousin is works for ABC in Philly. He liked the idea so much that he forward my 6 page proposal to ABC Sports and hopefully on the BCS committee. I could only dream it comes true.

OK, here is a recap of it.

After the regular season and conference championship game is over you take the TOP 16 teams in the nation based on the existing BCS system, but I still think it needs to be tweaked more closer to the HS playoff rankings. I told them that and gave them the formual on how HS award their points. When a lower team from the MAC beats a power team from the BIG 10, BIG 12, SEC, or ect. they are awarded bonus points, something that is not done now.

Anyways, you take the top 16 teams after the season is over and rank them 1-16, 1 play 16, 2 playing 15, etc. You have two weeks of playoffs, and after two weeks you are down to the final 4. You then take the other teams that did not make the playoffs and put them in bowls games, as long as they have a plus .500 record. You put them in their bowl games, but not in the Orange, Sugar, Rose, or Fiesta. Those 4 bowl games will now host the remaining 4 teams. The Orange Bowl will host one game. The Sugar will host another game. The Loser of each games, will then go to the Fiesta Bowl. With the WINNER playing for the National Championship in the ROSE BOWL. The bowls will still rotate every year. This will add 4 extra weeks to college football, but it would fit in nicely. Here is when the games could be played. One bad thing, if you are in the playoffs, you will not go to a bowl game since you are in the playoffs, unless you finish in the top 4. A good thing, this will eliminate some of the smaller bowls which is good because there are too many bowl games as it is.

Dec 11. Round of 16 Games (8 games played at higher seed school)
Dec 18. Round of 8 (4 games played at higher seed school)

Dec 21-Jan1 Have remaining bowl games for non playoff teams.

Jan 6 Have the two bowl games (Sugar and Orange Bowl), Winner of both games goes to NC, loser to the Consolation Fiesta Bowl. All teams have 2 weeks to prepare.

Jan 20 Fiesta Bowl and Rose Bowl (National Championship Game)

Jan 27 SUPER BOWL

I have gotten alot of support from people who have heard this in PA as well as my friends and family. What do you think? This also gives the smaller school with a great year a chance to win a NC. If you remember BG at one time last year was 18, Northern was 12, Miami (OH) was 11. So a Mid Major would make it as long as they had a good year. This year there are 3 Non BCS schools in the top 10. Utah, Boise and L'ville.

I think this could really work, but I doubt anyone from ABC or the BCS would look at it. It did take me a few days to put it all together.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:37 am

I am getting killed on other message boards, they said its a SHI$$Y idea and the current system is better. I don't believe that. I think they are just jealous that someone from BG could think of something that made sense

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:39 am

Lets call it what it is, a tournament. The winner is the tournament champion.

What is the point of a regular season, what happens to the bowl games I'd rather watch, who is going to travel four weeks in a row to watch the games, why are we going to drag the football into basketball, what happens to getting a 12 regular season game, why would the MAC want to flush post-season attention for a 1-and-out tournament, blah blah blah blah.

With due respect, the world is getting twisted in a knot over nothing.

In any case, I'm very sure the NCAA presidents will never allow a tournament to be created, nor should they.

Lets focus on getting some secured bowl games for the MAC and not piss away 15 years of fighting to get where we are.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:59 am

The issue isn't that some kind of tournament system could be crafted.

The point is that the debate isn't over proving anything. This is about who is considered the best at the end of the year. You will never prove anything to the satisfaction of everybody. Every system will have its flaws. Every system is going to leave enough people unhappy about how it treated their team, their conference, or how it failed to "really" prove who the best team was.

And why craft such a system, which really only exists to try to put teams you can point too right now, put in a bowl game or two, and get the same result.

All of this hype surrounds the over-blown hype about two and occasionally three teams in a couple of bowl games. And to solve what some people think is the most pressing concern of every football fan in America, they would utter screw over nearly all of the rest of us. Granted a few major college conferences would retain bowls. In a really happy dream world, you might argue the MAC could keep a bowl or two. But why would anybody want to embrace something that renders an entire year without meaning, because only one team gets a chance to be blown-out by a USC, and maybe one other gets to play in a game as nationally interesting as Delaware vs. North Dakota A & M Community College?

Once in 100 years, a MAC team might run the table and win a tournament, and is that worth screwing what we finally started to achieve the other 99 years? Never. What is worse, that one game in 100 will be lost by the MAC team half of the time or more.

I like the bowl games. I like having the chance to end my teams season with a win, in a game I actually have a chance to attend. I like not having to attend one game, worrying about getting to another. Or losing and having even that post-season game rendered worthless because it was only the "first round" of something we never have a chance to win anyway.

A tournament might be nice for X-Box, but it stinks up more than it is worth.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:00 pm

I think your idea has some merits. But to make sure all teams have a shot, I would make all conference champions be part of the tournament, yes even the SunBelt. That would give you 11 teams and then fill in the other 5 with the top remaining BCS ranked teams. That way a quality second place team (Cal, Texas) still gets a shot but you eliminate third place teams from current BCS conferences (Florida State, Georgia).

And not sure about the consolation bowl. I think that bowl could be used as the marquee game for all the non-tournament teams. You would still have big schools that travel well and it would still get good ratings.

But at any rate, I love any kind of thought of a tournament instead of the stupid BCS crap.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:09 pm

I dont like the idea of every conference champ. Are you saying the winner of the Sun Belt is better than CAL who finished 2nd in the PAC 10, or Tenn who finished 2nd. If we went with your idea some good teams would be left out, especially if the Sun Belt champ finished with a 6-5 record. I think they top 16 teams would be best. If you are good enough to run the table as a mid major and get in the top 16, then you deserve a shot, if not, you will still go to a bowl game.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:12 pm

I'm not convinced we need a playoff.

But if we have a playoff, then let's give automatic bids to the conferences.

Using the AP poll as a guide, here are potential pairings:

1/16: Southern California (Pac 10 champion) vs. North Texas (Sun Belt champion)
2/15: Oklahoma (Big 12 champion) vs. Toledo (MAC champion)
3/14: Auburn (SEC champion) vs. Pittsburgh (Big East champion)
4/13: California (at-large No. 1) vs. Michigan (Big Ten champion)
5/12: Utah (Mountain West champion) vs. Louisiana State (at-large No. 5)
6/11: Texas (at-large No. 2) vs. Iowa (at-large No. 4)
7/10: Louisville (Conference USA champion) vs. Boise State (WAC champion)
8/9: Georgia (at-large No. 3) vs. Virginia Tech (ACC champion)

The top three games look like mismatches... but haven't those undefeated teams earned a soft opener?

And, considering what the Falcons did at Oklahoma to start the year... one never knows. We weren't embarassed that day. One can argue Toledo wouldn't be embarassed, either.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:15 pm

Although Tenn. would not run the table, I still think you would need to put them in their rather that North Texas. If North Texas was that good they would be able to go 10-1 and maybe get in with their record. Just put them in a normal bowl game where they belong.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:17 pm

And so we come to another key point against some kind of football tournament.

No system that would be fair to every conference and team, would be possible to actually have. No system that is easy to run, will be fair to every conference or team.

Why flush a 12th regular season game, for a money-losing road trip in a tournament? The media types moan about lousy bowl game pairings, then would have us create a system with 12 blow-outs, a couple of upsets, and more debate over how the entire thing was picked.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:42 pm

NWLB wrote:
Why flush a 12th regular season game, for a money-losing road trip in a tournament? The media types moan about lousy bowl game pairings, then would have us create a system with 12 blow-outs, a couple of upsets, and more debate over how the entire thing was picked.

I'm sure that detractors thought the same thing when setting up the NCAA Hoops tourney when they paired the 15 seeds against the 2. Guess what, upsets still happen, and blowouts in any of those NCAA games are rare. The talent differential from the top of any conference to the top of any other is not THAT great.

Give each conference champ a bid, and fill 5 at large bids however makes sense (committee or BCS-esque standings). Let them play it off. Yeah, its a tournament. It's a playoff. Its the proper way to crown a champion, as is done in EVERY OTHER DIVISION 1 SPORT!

Every major sport in the world, save Division 1A football, is decided by a tournament/playoff. Now I realize that Nathan feels that every sport, except football, does things the wrong way, but I disagree. Give me a playoff any day. I think people will travel, as they do for the hoops games, and I think that the final 4 is going to be purely corporate anyways, as the hoops games are. Fan support will not be the problem.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:49 pm

bgsufan1972 wrote:Although Tenn. would not run the table, I still think you would need to put them in their rather that North Texas.

I'll grant, the Sun Belt is the weak link in all of this. The Sun Belt has never produced anything close to a Top 25 team.

Problem is, the same arguments you are making can be made against any non BCS conference. It's a slipperly slope.

One could create a rule requiring tournament participants to win seven or eight games. An eight-game rule would knock out 7-4 North Texas, leaving room for another at-large pick. In 2000, it would have knocked out Marshall (perhaps 10-1 Toledo could have been put forward instead).

I suppose any non-BCS conference champ that doesn't win eight games would be pretty weak.

But I'm not sure the top five money conferences would want to abide by such a rule. Flukes happen.

The more important issue here is money. If this model follows the NCAA tournament model, the MAC would be guaranteed 1/16th of the revenue every year (or pretty much every year in the case of an eight-win rule.)

Under your scenario, the non-BCS conferences will be largely shut out most years.

I believe a tournament would generate more revenue than the existing system. My conclusion, then: The gap between the five big money conferences and the rest of us would grow under your system.

That's not acceptable to me.

It also isn't acceptable to me to have good MAC teams sit home.

If the tournament had existed over the entire history of the MAC, these are the only teams we would have put in during the past 20 years:

Miami, 2003
Marshall, 1999

That isn't acceptable to me, either.

If North Texas was that good they would be able to go 10-1 and maybe get in with their record.

Maybe, maybe not.

More often than not, a 10-1 record has *not* put MAC teams in the Top 16.

Omar4Heisman · Post by **Omar4Heisman** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:51 pm

I dont like the idea of every conference champ

Then why is the Sun Belt even in Division 1-A if they don't have a chance to play for a national championship? The only way I would ever support a playoff is if all conferance champions get automatic bids, similar to the basketball tournament. I wouldn't mind giving the 11 conferance champs a bid and the next 5 highest ranked teams. I think the current system is far better than the old system and I don't know that a playoff eliminates all controversy in most years. If you take the top-8, then the 9th team will bitch. You take the top-16, then Pitt this year, for example will bitch because they won their conferance, but can't win the national title? I also don't like the idea of the 16th best team in the country having a chance to win the national championship when they may be no better than 3rd or 4th in their league. One of the great things about college football, IMO, is that one of the 2 or 3 best teams ALWAYS wins the national title. You don't have teams that were mediocre in the regular season winning the championship, similar to what happens in college basketball every now and then (see Kansas, Villanova, etc.).

No system will ever be perfect, but a system that does not include all teams in the division 1-A level should not be considered.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:07 pm

bgsufan1972 wrote:I dont like the idea of every conference champ. Are you saying the winner of the Sun Belt is better than CAL who finished 2nd in the PAC 10, or Tenn who finished 2nd. If we went with your idea some good teams would be left out, especially if the Sun Belt champ finished with a 6-5 record. I think they top 16 teams would be best. If you are good enough to run the table as a mid major and get in the top 16, then you deserve a shot, if not, you will still go to a bowl game.

Under the current BCS system, you have to be a conference champ (of a BCS conference) with only TWO at-large bids. If you take all confenerce champs, you need FIVE at-large teams to complete the 16 team field. And FWIW, a second place Tenn or CAL has no shot at the national title as the system stands today whereas they would in this proposal.

A conference championship has to be worth something or you could disband them all together and play as 117 Independents to determine the best 16 teams.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:09 pm

Omar4Heisman wrote:
I dont like the idea of every conference champ
Then why is the Sun Belt even in Division 1-A if they don't have a chance to play for a national championship?. . . ..

Because this isn't about winning national titles. Conference titles, maybe a bowl game, that is what this game is about. At some point, people started buying into the media-hyped idea that everybody in 1A must obviously be playing for the national title.

Don't feed me a tournament, I like college football as it is, without screwing it up more.

It isn't basketball with 20 people it is football, with a hundred kids, a dozen coaches, and god knows how many other folks. The basketball tournament has been a slow creeping monster for years. I haven't really cared about BGSU getting in that tournament for as long as I have been here. Because national titles aren't what I think the team plays for. I'm interested in the team winning the MAC, if something happens after that, great. But I do hate the season ending on a losing note.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:20 pm

NWLB wrote:Don't feed me a tournament, I like college football as it is, without screwing it up more.

How can you possibily think college football is NOT screwed up already? Cal was the #4 team all season, but oops, now we need to make the bowl matchups so let's vote Texas ahead of them because they will bring more fans. Who likes a stupid system like that? :shrug: