The BCS finally totally fails!!!

[geschinger]

Wouldn't you think those conferences would look at Hawaii and Boise St and vote yes, thinking they would have gotten their shot at playing for the title, where otherwise they do not?

The bar in a 6 or 8 team playoff would be even higher. Boise State would have been left out of a 6 team playoff and might have been the 8th team in an 8 team playoff last year and Hawaii would be left out in either a 6 or 8 team playoff this year. I can't see them giving their support. To get the backing of the schools from the non-BCS conferences any proposed playoff system will likely require those conferences to stop being treated like second class citizens.

[square634]

There's a big difference between making a BCS bowl game and a playoff to win it all, your post makes it seem the same. Yes, it would make a difference when many must win games(or at least games we think are must win) become games where a loss can easily be survived by the team with title aspirations. So, yes, it really would make a big difference. Even an 8 team playoff makes a big difference in that regard, 16 just takes it to another level.

I think the regular season would be very close to as important as it is now. In most years, almost all teams would be in danger of slipping out of the top 8 with a loss in the last week. Secondly, teams would want to win to get a better seed.

[mweb]

The bar in a 6 or 8 team playoff would be even higher. Boise State would have been left out of a 6 team playoff and might have been the 8th team in an 8 team playoff last year and Hawaii would be left in either a 6 or 8 team playoff this year. I can't see them giving their support. To get the backing of the schools from the non-BCS conferences for a playoff any proposed system will likely have to stop treating them as second class citizens.

Well they are second class citizens, maybe some of those schools should move down if they have a problem with it.

A 6-16 team playoff would give these schools a much better chance of competing for the title than they currently have.

[mweb]

I think the regular season would be very close to as important as it is now. In most years, almost all teams would be in danger of slipping out of the top 8 with a loss in the last week. Secondly, teams would want to win to get a better seed.

It's not just about the last week. I'd be fine with an 8 team playoff, just think anymore than that, and you really hurt the importance of the top teams games.

[geschinger]

Well they are second class citizens, maybe some of those schools should move down if they have a problem with it.

They don't have to. Instead they can use their clout to make sure that there is either an inclusionary playoff system or none at all. The question is what do you think is better for the sport - a playoff system that allows some teams in the mix that aren't of the same caliber as the others or no playoff system at all?

A 6-16 team playoff would give these schools a much better chance of competing for the title than they currently have.

How so? Since the inception of the BCS, has there ever been a non BCS conference team that would have qualified for a 6 team playoff? I don't see how it gives them any better chance.

And if they're honest, the real beef the other conferences have with the BCS system is the money. The current system makes it more likely for a team from a non-BCS conference to grab a share of the BCS money.

I doubt even the BCS conferences could be convinced to go to any kind of playoff system that eliminates an auto bid for the conference champion thereby diminishing the importance of conference schedules and lessening their payouts.

[RShack]

Even an 8 team playoff makes a big difference in that regard, 16 just takes it to another level.

It takes it to a *way* different level. With 16, somebody at the top could lose and not even fret for even a minute, they'd still be getting in, guaranteed. One of the few good things about the way it is now is that there are no guarantees.

[geschinger]

It takes it to a *way* different level. With 16, somebody at the top could lose and not even fret for even a minute, they'd still be getting in, guaranteed. One of the few good things about the way it is now is that there are no guarantees.

How different is it really if 11 of the 16 slots went to conference champions? We're only talking on additional slot for a non conference champion compared to getting a BCS invite.

[RShack]

Good point. The most ardent support for changing the current system is probably going to come from the non-BCS schools who are already on the outside looking in. Try to institute a playoff that will almost certainly exclude those schools again and you can guarantee there won't be enough votes to make it happen.

Wouldn't you think those conferences would look at Hawaii and Boise St and vote yes' date=' thinking they would have gotten their shot at playing for the title, where otherwise they do not?[/quote']

Of course they would. If you could give the Boise and Hawaii level of schools a place in the playoffs, they'd jump at it. It's way more than they have now. The way things are now, they have no shot whatsoever. You'd be giving them a shot it.

Plus, I don't think it's the Hawaii's and the Boise's of the world are who decides this anyway. It's the big-league college presidents who are being the obstacle to this. All the other college presidents, clear on down through Div II and Div III, think a playoff is a fine thing. I don't agree with the premise that you need a 16-team playoff in order to get enough votes from the nobodies of the college football world. Those guys aren't the problem. It's the big shots who are blocking it.

[geschinger]

Of course they would. If you could give the Boise and Hawaii level of schools a place in the playoffs, they'd jump at it. It's way more than they have now. The way things are now, they have no shot whatsoever. You'd be giving them a shot it.

Plus, I don't think it's the Hawaii's and the Boise's of the world are who decides this anyway. It's the big-league college presidents who are being the obstacle to this. All the other college presidents, clear on down through Div II and Div III, think a playoff is a fine thing. I don't agree with the premise that you need a 16-team playoff in order to get enough votes from the nobodies of the college football world. Those guys aren't the problem. It's the big shots who are blocking it.

I don't see the NCAA getting into the the postseason football business w/o a groundswell of support from the member institutions.

[RShack]

How so? Since the inception of the BCS, has there ever been a non BCS conference team that would have qualified for a 6 team playoff? I don't see how it gives them any better chance.

Six is a dumb number to pick. For the same number of weekends, you get eight teams in. Boise played in the Fiesta Bowl with a rather stunning performance. If the media guys would just get their act together, that game could be used to do for a playoff what the Colts-Giants sudden-death game did for the NFL. If Hawaii turns out to be a handful for Georgia, that'd be 2 in a row to make the point about how the club is too small.

IMO, eight is the right number. Just gotta do some sorting out about how you pick the 8, that's all. Right now, bowl season starts on 12/20 and ends on 1/7. That's 19 days, inclusive. An 8-team playoff could be done in 15 days. You'd prolly wanna give everybody an extra day or something, but even that wouldn't make bowl season any longer than it already is.

If you kept it at 8, then you could still sprinkle a lot of other bowls in there too for everybody else. With a 16-team playoff, that would be harder to do, simply because too many of the good teams would be in the playoffs, which would make the non-playoff bowls seem even crappier, marketing-wise. One thing I think the big school prez's are afraid of is a net-shrinkage of bowl games. The big conferences cash in pretty big on non-BCS bowls because half or more of their teams are in them. You make the playoff bigger than the number of BCS games now, and they'll think they're losing money on the deal because they can't get as many bowl pay-outs. With just 8 in the playoffs, your not messing with that. There'd still be only 8 teams in BCS games just like now, it would just be arranged differently. The big conferences could still get money from just as many meaningless bowls as they do now. Lots of people like watching bowl games, even meaningless ones that don't matter much except to see interesting match-ups. With only 8 in the playoffs, that could continue just like now.

[hoosiers]

I like the controversy of the current system.

I think a playoff system would encourage teams to dumb down their schedules more than many already do.

There needs to be better non-conference scheduling, IMO, and perhaps even some flexible in-season scheduling. Teams like Boise State and Hawaii should have to play significantly harder schedules.

Penn State hasn't made much noise since moving into the Big Ten. Neither has Florida State since the All Creampuff Conference asked in some heavyweights.

[RShack]

I think a playoff system would encourage teams to dumb down their schedules more than many already do.

I don't see why that would be.

There needs to be better non-conference scheduling, IMO, and perhaps even some flexible in-season scheduling. Teams like Boise State and Hawaii should have to play significantly harder schedules.

Not their fault. No brand-name schools will play them. If a brand-name school wants to play a cream-puff, they're not gonna pick those guys. If they wanna play somebody good, they're not gonna play them either, they'd pick another brand-name school instead. Nobody good wants to play those guys.

Penn State hasn't made much noise since moving into the Big Ten. Neither has Florida State since the All Creampuff Conference asked in some heavyweights.

It might be because both of their coaches are now older than dirt. The flow of teams in-and-out of conferences has always been governed by TV payoffs, ever since TV. Nothing special about them joining conferences. Their coaches were in their prime during the years before that, don't you think?

[RShack]

I don't see the NCAA getting into the the postseason football business w/o a groundswell of support from the member institutions.

AFAIK, nobody doesn't want it except for the big dogs plus a couple purists. It's not that opinion is against it. It's that the opinion of influential schools are against it.

As for the little guys, they'd jump at 1 slot in an 8-team playoff. That would be huge for them. Not only would it give them a chance which they don't have now, it also gets their foot in the door. Once they get there, then if the acquit themselves well, then 10 years from now they could argue for 2 slots, etc. As long as they're on the outside, they get nothing but a 1-bowl paycheck.

[mweb]

They don't have to. Instead they can use their clout to make sure that there is either an inclusionary playoff system or none at all. The question is what do you think is better for the sport - a playoff system that allows some teams in the mix that aren't of the same caliber as the others or no playoff system at all?

How so? Since the inception of the BCS, has there ever been a non BCS conference team that would have qualified for a 6 team playoff? I don't see how it gives them any better chance.

And if they're honest, the real beef the other conferences have with the BCS system is the money. The current system makes it more likely for a team from a non-BCS conference to grab a share of the BCS money.

I doubt even the BCS conferences could be convinced to go to any kind of playoff system that eliminates an auto bid for the conference champion thereby diminishing the importance of conference schedules and lessening their payouts.

I guess you missed the -16 part of 6-16, or you're just cherry-picking to help make your point, I'm agonizing over which is actually the case. But even if it is just 6 teams, you have to admit it gives them a better chance. Making the top 6 is more plausible than making the top 2 for a school like Hawaii.

And my points aren't really concerning what certain schools or conferences would want, they're about what's best for the game in my opinion. So yeah, maybe it wouldn't get approved, but is what makes sense imo.

[geschinger]

I guess you missed the -16 part of 6-16, or you're just cherry-picking to help make your point, I'm agonizing over which is actually the case. But even if it is just 6 teams, you have to admit it gives them a better chance. Making the top 6 is more plausible than making the top 2 for a school like Hawaii.

And my points aren't really concerning what certain schools or conferences would want, they're about what's best for the game in my opinion. So yeah, maybe it wouldn't get approved, but is what makes sense imo.

My bad, I missed the -16 part and assumed from previous posts that you were against 16 teams. In a utopian environment I think 8 is ideal w/the top eight teams being invited (i.e. no guaranteed slots) but I've been convinced that realisitically a +1 or 16 team tourney is the best we're gonna get and I'd prefer a 16 team tourney over a +1 or nothing.