Try that again ...
I'll put up something tonight in more detail, rather than clog your comments board with a 300 line post, but ...
To me, the structure is less important than the selection process. I'm firmly anti-playoff, but the biggest fear stems from a firm belief that "they" will get it wrong. I mean, you can't get wronger than the BCS, and we've had that for almost a decade.
The argument that teams will play 15 games (4 extra) in a 16 team playoff is kind of nuts.
The only teams playing 15 games are the final two teams, the rest only play 1,2, or 3 extra games, with the majority playing only one extra game.
A playoff would be exciting and a money maker...sponsorship would skyrocket, we would have the 'Dr. Pepper championship game', etc.
There would still be disputes over 'bubble' teams and matchups/seatings, but we would have one true champ.
The BCS is a failure. We need a playoff system, it's that simple. I think the 8-team proposal is a good one. I would be okay with 16 teams as well but that might be too difficult to work out. I'd even be satisfied with 4 teams. Give us something better than the crap we have now!
In the 8-team format, I'm in favor of having the 1st and 2nd round games at the site of the higher seeded teams and then having the national championship game at a neutral site, alternating between the current BCS bowl sites. The bowls are already mostly meaningless so having a playoff would not harm anything. They could still have the other bowl games as well as the playoffs.
I think the 4-team playoff would not only be the easiest playoff to implement (duh), but would also solve what's really the only real problem in CFB: the presence of a third team that seems as deserving as #1 & #2 at the end of the year. I.E., Auburn '04.
Giving them a shot at the title is, to me, far more important than opening the door to a slew of 9-3 teams. Limiting the playoff to four teams keeps CFB's traditional exclusivity intact, yet expands the field just enough to settle the #1 vs #2 argument.
Of course, the big argument would then be who gets in at #4, and in years where there's not a clear-cut top 4 teams the noise from every team within spitting distance will be through the roof. (Although you'll get that no matter how big the field is).
Anyway, the 4-teamer seems simplest to me, and it answers the most important question without opening the door too wide.
You could take two of the BCS bowls for the first round, then the new BCS Bowl they just added, and make that the NC game. Voila.
Knowing the NCAA like I think I do, there is no way you will get all of the conferences to participate unless their champ is included in the tourney...regardless of how deserving said team might be. So that leads me to believe you would have a hard time getting down below 12 to 16 teams.
You might be able to squeeze the Sun Belt out of the proceedings, but that still leaves you with 10 conference champs angling for inclusion. There will also always be a handful of teams that, while they did not win their conference, they will have a claim to be an at-large contender.
So I could see at least 12 teams involved in the mythical playoff. That means you will need to win your conference to guarantee yourself a spot in the playoff. It is also inclusive as it includes almost all of the conferences involved in div-1a. If you give the Sun Belt their token spot you have trouble getting a playoff with fewer than 16 teams.
First two rounds are played on the homefield of the team ranked higher. Final Four could rotate amongst the BCS bowls. Teams outside the playoff can still make plans to play at the Motor City Bowl or the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl.
Eight-team playoff, in a landslide. I proposed it about 10 years ago in the Michigan Review. Anyway, here's what I'd add.
1. Limit "pre-season" games to 3 for conferences that have a championship game. That would have put most teams at 12 games (3+8+bowl), and the max would be 14 (3+8+3 playoff).
2. Six (or five) major conference winners, with two (or three) at-large berths. Can you imagine Selection Sunday! Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, SEC are automatic--maybe you add the Big East. None of this "Notre Dame if it's in the top 100" bs, either. You could have a procedure to include/exclude certain conferences if necessary.
3. Championship games have to be no later than the first Saturday in December. That puts them (this year) on the 3rd. The playoff games would be on the 10th and the 17th, with...
4. Four major bowls operate as locations for semi-finals, final and consolation. (You can expand this as you like.) They would rotate, and the semi-final losers (maybe) play in a bowl on the 1st as well. Or you could cover this to have 1st place, 3rd place, 5th place, and 7th place games in various bowls.
5. Staggered payoffs. I would think the rights to this would be worth about $250M. I would say that the first round teams get $10M, the losing semi-finalists get $20M, the losing finalist gets $30M, and the winner gets $50M. Make it worth the conference's collective whiles, and you'll get votes of approval.
6. The bowl system remains as the NIT of college football. I don't think that anyone realistically thinks that the Sun Bowl Champion is really #1, so it won't harm their sales.
To be resolved:
1. Where to hold first round games? Home (higher-ranked) team? Decided by selection committee? Neutral sites (Midwest, Southeast, South, West)? I would imagine that pro stadiums would love to host these games.
2. 5 or 6 conferences in (already mentioned).
I can't find a flaw in this system. The movie line that comes to mind is "Of course it's a good idea!" -- Monty Python.
Matt stole my thunder. (Or at least wrote what I was kinda/sorta thinking in a much more organized fashion.)
Only thing I'd say is that every team has to be in a conference to be considered, and all conferences need a championship game. The champ. game is the "first round of the playoffs". Figuring out at-large teams (if needed) after that might cause some grumblings, but tough cookies, you had a chance to win your conference championship.
If ND wants to complain that they're not included, send them a polite letter with numerous references to key acronyms like "STFU" and "GFY".
Keep the "lesser bowls", and as was said, use the "Big 4" for the last two weekends. Revenue/payout would indeed be huge, and if the academic side of these universities wants to complain, I'm sure a clause that "XX% of a school/conference's earnings from these games goes to scholarship funds and/or academic pursuits" would hush 'em up nicely.
I think decidedly un-neutral sites would be best, as it helps preserve the "win or die" mentality of CFB a bit. Plus I really want to go to a playoff game at Michigan Stadium. My proposal is very similar to Matt's (and it's in the linked post at the beginning). Five autobids from the top five conferences, and then one from the remainder of the conference champions/highly-ranked independents. Two at large bids.
The end result would be a lot like last year's BCS slate except Pitt would be gone and Cal would be in. Michigan's loss to OSU would still have been horribly devastating, as it would cost them a first-round home game (and put the entire enterprise in jeopardy if Wisconsin beats Iowa).
My vote is for the 8 teamer. This keeps the regular season exciting, allows access to the Utah's of the world when they deserve it and allows Michigan and Florida and others to play more than one tough out of conference game.
College football is the greatest sport on earth. Imagine how much more emotion and excitement a play-off would add.
I wrote about this a few weeks ago. I took the 8 BCS teams and put them against each other in a play-off format.
I'm in favor of a 12 team, NFL style playoff. Most importantly, I want the early games to be at home. I really, really, really want to beat a southern team up here (or have OSU, Wisco, ND, BC, etc do it). More over at my site.
I'm a curmudgeon. There is no national championship in D1A football and I don't think that's a bad thing. I would like to see the BCS go away and return to the old bowl system with one minor modification. The 4 big bowls should be willing to allow for one deviation from traditional tie-ins each year (if needed) to create a Compelling Matchup Game. Don't attempt to come up with some fancy system to determine the compelling teams, just use common sense (think Michigan v. Nebraska for '98 Rose Bowl).
Most of the complaints haven't been about the top two teams (the past two years not withstanding), it's been the other at large BCS teams that caused most of the acrimony. In almost every year, it's obvious which two teams would create the most compelling matchup, but when it isn't - no big deal there's still the traditional tie-ins to fall back on. The voters can then feel free to decide who won the MNC.
Here is my question, why does the system have to be so set in stone? Isn't that the thing about college football, it changes so much every year?
Why can't it be a spur of the moment kind of decision?
If there are three undefeated teams left someone gets a "bye" (perhaps based on strength of schedule) and the winner of the first game plays the 2nd for the title. Then you are guaranteed a national champ.
If there are four undefeated (or 4 one-loss teams) do a playoff.
Two undefeated or one loss would be obviously 1 game.
The trick is one undefeated and 1 (or more 1 loss teams).
With every scenario but the last you would be guaranteed there would be only 1 team with 0 or 1 losses.
Nick, I've advocated that but in an "it'll never happen" kind of way. If there's a playoff, they will want the # of games and timings set in stone for TV and advertising reasons.
I realize I am chiming in late but there are a few flaws with an 8 team playoff where teams are playing every weekend. Firstly, you cannot expect fans to travel on a weeks notice, nor can you expect an entire football team to put together travel plans in one week. Schedules are released years in advance so teams, fans and towns can make preparations for the large influx of fans.
If you use a neutral site, then you are faced with the possibility of having to get an entire fan base to spend a lot of money to travel on a weeks notice for 3 straight weeks. If you play the first round at the higher seeds stadium you are faced with many crucial obstacles. Say Michigan doesn’t know if they will make the playoffs one week before they start. Can you expect there to be enough vacant hotels? Can the stadium stock enough security or food? Can the networks get there gear to locations and set up in enough time?
This isn’t like D-IAA, lots of money is at stake here. And this certainly isn’t like March Madness where neutral sites know they will be hosting a bracket and can prepare for it regardless of the teams. Plus basketball arenas are much smaller, and in the tournament are often filled with more than 2 different teams.
And then there is the issue of rest and preparation. After a long hard season, I for one would like to see teams get healthy and prepare for their opponents. I don’t want to see a beat up team with a few days preparation go out there. I want to see a healthy, aptly equipped team with a game plan.
An 8-Team Playoff could work though, but the key is spacing. In the up coming year, it could look like this; play the first round at the higher seeds venue on December 3rd, then the next round would be played December 17th at a neutral bowl site (use Rose, Sugar and Orange on rotating basis), then January 7th, you have the National Championship at a neutral bowl site. This gives fans and teams more time to make plans and prepare, it allows home playoff games, maintains the bowls and crowns a true national champion.
Only problems would be, conferences with championship games need to be done earlier, and what becomes of the other bowls? The other bowls would conveniently be used to fill up the space between the playoffs, as to not starve us college fans. Use the Cotton Bowl and Fiesta Bowl (rotating) to host the consolation game, and then fill in the rest of the dates, including New Years.
So this begs the question, how are the 8 teams selected? Easy, champions of the Pac 10, Big 12, Big 10, SEC and ACC get automatic bids. If you can’t win your conference you don’t deserve an automatic shot. Next, 3 at large bids (decided by AP, BCS, committee) are given to allow independents (Notre Dame), mid majors (Utah, Boise State, Louisville), and conference runners up (Cal) a shot. Use whatever method you want (save for lottery) to seed the teams. And yes I am aware Louisville is in the Big East, but guess what; it’s not a major conference.
You can also use the 4 bowls as quarterfinals.
Rose Bowl: Big 10 v Pac 10
Sugar Bowl: SEC v. Committee Selection
Orange Bowl: ACC v. Committee Selection
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 v. Committee Selection
You can have a selection committee give 3 at larges, or you can have a "best non-bcs conf winner" and 2, either way.
The four bowl winners get reseeded by a predetermined order and #4 plays at #1 and #3 at #2.
The winner plays in a national championship game on a rotating basis.
This keeps the tradition of the bowls (other teams can play bowl games that have no NC significance), and extends the season for a total of 4 teams.
Commenting by HaloScan
