I don't know, having a 8 team playoff tournament would definitely keep the college foot ball season as it has been the past few years. The one thing I liked about the BCS is that I followed games and cared about every team a heck of a lot more than I do about NFL season. And it's a lot more fun to see a unranked team ruin a top ranked teams chances at national championship. Now if you make it 8 team, it might get better, but there will be just as much controversy as to who gets in. Does K - State beating Oklahoma and winning Conf Champ get in? Does OK still get in despite the loss? Where does that leave UT? Does Miami get in this year with only 2 losses despite an obviously inferior team? What about teams in the WAC, do they still never get a chance at the the playoffs? Or how about a one loss TCU or Miami OH? a 8 team playoff would keep the season as exciting for the most part, but it's definitely not the solution to all our problems at all. Now if you expand the number of teams, it will definitely make the season more boring.
Yep. Just another ridiculous little factiod in a blizzard of irritating crap surrounding the college football "championship".
I think the reason why LSU played Western Illinois (which is one of the better I-AA teams in the country) is that someone else they were supposed to play backed out on them. It happened to Miami last year or maybe the year before when they played Florida A&M because East Carolina backed out of their game. In reading stuff here and on ESPN and thinking about this in general, the biggest problem with all of this is the computers. It may have been in another thread but Major pointed out how Miami of Ohio was #3 in one poll, #6 in another, and #22 in yet another. And all of these computer polls are used. If you can figure out the Sagarin ratings, then you need to receive an honorary degree from MIT (which is where Sagarin got his by the way...). But I don't like how there is this "perception" of randomness with these computer polls. My solution would be one of these 2 things: 1) If you go with a 16 team playoff (which is really too many), do it like I-AA. Have it where conference champions get automatic berths and at-large goes to teams with the highest rankings according to the poll. The first round games could be either at the home field of the higher seed or in lower tiered bowl games. By the second round, use the bowls. 2) Have 8 teams make it, use the BCS formula (with some tweaking to the computer polls), and take the top 8 teams, regardless of record or conference affiliation or anything else. Sure, there would be some complaining about the team that got ranked #9, but that would be better than a team like USC ranked #1 in both human polls being shut out. Also, one other thing I would do if I was running college football (which has always been a dream for me.. ) is that I would make all the major conferences have 12 teams in them. For example, the PAC-10 needs to add BYU and Utah (since they love rivalries), the Big 10 (actually Big 11) would get Notre Dame (sorry Irish but no more of this independent crap), and a slew of teams would be demoted down to I-AA such as Buffalo, Kent State, the Louisiana schools (monroe and lafayette), and yes, even my alma mater, Middle Tennessee State University.
Eactly. Two teams are enough. If you have a 8 team playoff, anual show-down of MIchigan vs OSU wouldn't mean as much (for a lot of other rivalries too). Like this year, Whoever lost that final game would still have a shot at the national title (both of them are now in BCS bowl games). That's not as much fun.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Ask Larry Fitzgerald, *possible* Heisman Trophy winner, how "inferior" that team is... Yes, Brock Berlin is an inferior Miami QB, but he is about the only thing on that team that is inferior. Miami should be 11-1 if it wasn't for him, maybe 12-0 (Turnovers by Berlin led to 21 of 31 Virginia Tech points).
Eactly. Two teams are enough. If you have a 8 team playoff, anual show-down of MIchigan vs OSU wouldn't mean as much (for a lot of other rivalries too). Of course, if Michigan & OSU are ranked #3 and #4, but OU and LSU are #1 and #2, all with the same record, then UM-OSU doesn't mean much either.
I think its ok to take into consideration the entire season and not just one game, but in this instance, I say it should be USC vs. LSU... OU didn't even win there conference, yet they're playing in a national championship? I wish there were playoffs...
If you make a playoffs with only conference winners, then UM-OSU means just as much as now. My point is there will not be as much one-game-spoiler thrill. They can still get in with wild cards, as OSU does in fact this year.
16 teams would use the bowl games as game sites. They would be split up into: 11 conference championships, seeded by a ranking of conference overall strength, strength of schedule, etc similar to the way the NCAA basketball tourney selection committee does it. 5 at large bids to cover teams that didn't win their conference (OU) and deserving independents (TCU, maybe?), seeded in the same fashion as the champions so that the winner of the Sun Belt, wouldn't get a higher seed than say, OU. In the final four and the championship, the games would rotate among the top bowl games (Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, Orange, etc.) every year as they do with the BCS. This solution keeps the bowls and would only require the champion to play four more games. As for the other bowls on the outside, they would become a sort of NIT for football. I think it is the most workable solution I can think of.
I was watching an interview with a guy from the BCS board last night, and he made the point that when the BCS formula was being developed, the initial idea was that it would be based solely on polls. However, the AP nixed the idea saying that they "report the news, not make it". The irony in that statement is killing me!
