What would you propose as the best best college football system?

I have always thought that a 16 team tournament would be good.

1. There would be 16 conferences. Notre Dame would have to man up and join one.

2. It has always seemed odd to have at large bids in football. If you aren't the best team in your conference, you aren't the best team in the country.

3. This would allow the bowls to have compelling matchups of non conference champion teams. (perhaps Cal vs. Oklahoma).

The bowls would continue to bring in money and the tournament would be a TV draw (because championship tournaments always are.

The tournament would consist of 3 rounds and the title game. That is 4 rounds...4 weeks. It could all be done between semesters.

 

The problem with giving every conference champion a bid is that it rewards decent teams that play in mediocre conferences. You leave out multiple teams from the SEC that would be better than the champion of the Sun Belt, WAC, CUSA, etc. Even limiting it to champs from BCS conferences is problematic for the same reason.

I might be in favor of keeping the BCS computer rankings in order to determine the top 12 or 16 teams regardless of conference and having a 4 week playoff supplemented by bowls. It'd be like the NCAA Tourney (playoff) and the NIT (bowls).

 

the same thing happens in march madness. tons of league winners who get in, when bubble teams, who are much better, dont. doesnt seem to be hurting ratings or revenue at all

 

Actually, there's really no need to complicate it. You simply follow the model of DI-AA.

Here's how they do it:
16 Teams
8 Automatic Qualifiers from selected conferences (probably 6 for DI)

At-large teams shall be selected by the Division I-AA football committee, assisted by four regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory capacity only.

The following principles shall apply when selecting at-large teams:
1. The committee shall select the best teams available on a national at-large basis to complete the bracket;
2. There is no limit to the number of teams the committee may select from one conference;
3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected;
4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents; and
5. If the team of a committee member is under consideration, the member may not vote for the team being considered and will not be in the room when a vote is taken.

In other words, use a committee for the remain 10 at large slots, kind of like they do for the basketball tourney.

All pairings will be made by the Division I-AA football committee. The following principles are applied when pairing teams:

1. The teams awarded the top four seeds are placed in the appropriate positions in the bracket (Nos. 1 and 4 in the upper half, and Nos. 2 and 3 in the lower half), and will be paired with teams that are in closest geographic proximity;
2. The remaining teams will be paired according to geographic proximity and placed in the bracket according to geographic proximity of the four pairings previously placed in the bracket.
3. Teams from the same conference will not be paired for first-round games;
4. Once the first-round pairings have been determined, there will be no adjustments to the bracket.

 

But that's with 63 teams. A tournament where LSU (hypothetically) sits at home, after going undefeated in the regular season only to lose in the SEC championship game, while someone like New Mexico State got in would be an even bigger joke.

Without giving it too much thought, I'd give eight automatic bids and eight at-large bids. I'd even be OK with using the current BCS calculations to pick the eight teams. Use the existing bowls as game locations so the traditions of the Independence Bowl or the Liberty Bowl could be maintained (sarcasm). It would take four weekends and would easily be the most popular sporting event in the nation. It would rival the Super Bowl, IMO.

 

Hi, the bowl games went the way of the NIT a long time ago. I think you'd have to work out where you gave a share to the schools and the conferences, which is how the bowl games work now, IIRC.

 

Just do it like the I-AA schools do it. 16 berths. Include all conference winners and the rest as at-large berths.

If LSU runs the table, yet loses in the SEC championship game, they would most likely get an at-large berth.

Even if you're "on the bubble" you still have a better chance of winning the NC than you do under the current system. Plus, if you're "on the bubble" do you really deserve to get in anyway? Do what you have to do (ie. WIN) to stay OFF the bubble. Problem solved.

To the people who think some conference winners don't deserve to get in the playoff system, that's a good point. But, over time, when EVERY conference theoretically has a chance to win a NC, all the blue-chip players will start signing with those schools and, eventually, all the conferences will start to even out.

I'm a big fan of I-AA football and there is very rarely a "controversy" when a team doesn't make it in. If you deserve to get in, you almost always DO get in.

Just my opinion...

 

I agree. Automatic bids for like 6-8 conferences and then use BCS rankings or whatever else to fill out the bracket. Set it up in regionals where the bowls are used to host the games, basically all "neutral" fields. Rotating NC bowl each year like now.

Last year it could have played out like this

Automatics:
Big 10 Champ: Ohio State
SEC Champ: Florida
PAC 10 Champ: USC
Big East Champ: Louisville
ACC Champ: Wake Forest
Big 12 Champ: Oklahoma
Mountain West: BYU
C-USA: U of H


At large: Michigan
2: LSU
3: Wisconsin
4. Notre Dame
5. Boise State
6. Auburn
7. West Virginia
8. Arkansas

You then break it up into regionals.

Are there teams who could say they deserved a shot more than say U of H or Byu? Sure there are. But the 15th ranked team in the country complaining carries a lot less weight than the 3rd ranked team complaining.

 

anyone that doesnt suggest a system that provides equal access to non-BCS conferences to the tournament/title game is completely missing the point about what is wrong with the current system

 

Care to make a suggestion yourself? It is very easy to say you want a system that proves equal access to everyone, but when there are 100+ teams and only 1 title game...it is much easier said than done.

 

I disagree. The main point about what's wrong with the current system isn't equal access for every non-BCS conference, it's the fact there is no playoff at all.

I'm willing to compromise some and say there should be 8 teams chosen for a playoff. The 6 BCS conference champs plus two invitees. This way, you can still fit the playoff games around the current BCS bowl system and keep some people happy. New Years Day, have 4 big bowl games; then a week later 2; then the championship a week after that.

The controversy would involve who the two invitees are. If non-BCS conferences or independents want their teams to have a shot at being invited, they must play and beat some BCS schools along the way or they don't deserve an invite.

A 16 team playoff may be too radical a step at first. Starting off with 8 would at least be a huge step in the right direction. Once everyone got comfortable with a playoff, it could be tweaked to add another round. Personally, I think 8 is enough (no pun intended).

 

Problem with this theory is that many "BSC" schools would be afraid to put the up and coming "non-BCS" schools on their schedules. Not to mention that most schools make their schedules 5 or 6 years in advance which would make it almost impossible to know how to pick and choose.

If all conference winners get an invite, over time, more good HS players would be spread around to all the conferences/schools instead of the just perineal Top 20 schools getting first dibs every year and the "non BCS" schools having to choose from their left-overs. I still maintain that this would even out the conferences making the "stronger conference vs. weaker conference" arument a moot point.

Not to start an argument, but who is to say Vince Young doesn't decide to stay at home to play at UH if, theoretically, they CAN win a NC.

 

First I would get rid of conference championships. Then I would put in place a system similar to the NFL. 12 team playoff race with the top 4 teams getting a buy. Sixteen is too much. Top four team in the country accoriding to the BCS ranking would get a buy.

Winners of the Big 12, Big 10, Acc, Pac 10, SEC, Big East get Automatic births. Top two teams from non-BCS conferences get automatic births plus 4 at large bids from any conference get in.

 

Well I had a post up and it disappeared on me. I hate it when that **** happens.

Anyway, I would do a playoff system of the top 12 teams with the top 4 getting byes. Notre Dame would have to be in a conference if they want to be eligible for this tournament. All teams' regular seasons would have to be over by the end of November - no more of this regular season extending into December. Also, either every conference has a championship game or no conference has one. It is stupid that the SEC and Big 12 have conference championship games but the Pac 10 and the Big 10 (really the Big 11) don't.

Until you get down to the final 4, the team with the higher ranking (which in this case would mean the team that has the lowest number, i.e. the #1 team has the higher ranking compared to the #2 team) would have the homefield advantage. Once you get to the final 4, certain select bowls would host. So, one year you could have the 2 semifinals be played in the Sugar Bowl and the Rose Bowl and then the NCS game could be played in the Fiesta Bowl. To me, those are the ONLY 3 bowls that would get this exclusive privilege and they would rotate every year on which one would get the final game.

Teams that do not make the playoffs can still go to bowls but they would be minor bowls like the Liberty Bowl or the Music City Bowl, etc.

And my system would not have a poll until the 2nd week of October. My poll would be similar to the BCS in at least how it is composed. The components would be average ranking in the AP Poll and Coaches Poll, strength of schedule, and average ranking in the computers. My system's biggest flaw is that it still uses the rankings (BCS) to determine who gets in as well as there are no automatic berths - either get ranked in the top 12 or miss the tourney, but at least my format has the teams matched up in a tourney style and they decide the champion on the field.

 

If they want to keep the bowls in place/many regular season elimination games than it's a final four

If you want to be fair, add 1 team to make it 120 NCAA D-1 teams have ten, twelve team conference's all with two divisions and a title game.

that means 12 get in by winning conference.

then you have two at large teams that get in to make it 14, the top two national seeds (what would of in the past been the national title game) get a first round bye while we get six winners from the first round games.

Then you have eight and from there you get a final four than a real national title game.

The pluses, everyone can go into the season with a shot at winning the national title.

There are still two at-large teams for one of the big boys who does not win their conf.

The top two national seeds get a bye so when they join the tourny it's only 8 teams and not 16 like others have mentioned

 

I like the system that has everyone talking about college football in september, kind of like now.

 

best one yet.

 

This would never happen, but a system that would keep the meaningful nature of the regular season while still ensuring a quality champion would be to follow the European model.

You would have one or two "Top Flight" divisions comprised of around 15 teams. Every team would play every other team in the division once (14 games). If you still wanted playoffs you could do that with either the one or two top flight format but the playoffs would have to be a 6 or 8 team type tournament.

What about the other 90+ teams? You would have them form similar non-top flight divisions. You would have two lower flight divisions for every division above it. For example:

1 Top Flight Division : 2 Second Tier Divisions : 4 Third Tier Divisions, etc.
2 Top Flight Divisions: 4 Second Tier Divisions : 8 Third Tier Divisions, etc.

While the top teams would be battling for the playoffs, the lower teams would still have something to play for. The 4 lowest ranking teams in each division would be "relegated" to the lower division, while the top 2 teams from each lower division would be "promoted" to the division directly above it. Another option would be to have the "promoted" teams play a game vs the corresponding "relegated" teams to determine who gets the spot in the higher division.

This system would make every regular season game meaningful (as right now) but also include the playoff structure that many seem to be clamoring for. It also has the added benefit of allowing any team to work its way to the top flight regardless of where they start out. As it is right now, 95% of the teams have no chance of even playing for the championship, much less winning it.

The cons of this system would of course be that many of the rivalry games don't get played every year. However, it would make those games even more meaningful than they are right now. For fun, here's what the system would have looked like this year (the one top flight division format) using the end of the year BCS rankings from last year to determine who would have been in which flight (there would probably be a different method of determining divisions for the first year, of course).

Top Flight - Championship Division
1. Florida
2. Ohio State
3. LSU
4. USC
5. Boise State
6. Louisville
7. Wisconsin
8. Michigan
9. Auburn
10. West Virginia
11. Oklahoma
12. Rutgers
13. Texas
14. California
15. Arkansas

Each of those teams would play one game against each other like the current divisions. The BCS rankings only go to 25 so there's no way to know who all would comprise the lower divisions but you'd have 30 teams in Division 2, 60 in Division 3 and all others in Division 4. Since each team would be playing against teams within its skill range so the prospect of moving up each season would be within reach for every team. The top flight games would be among the top teams in the nation so each game would be a top draw.

Again, this has no chance of happening but I think it's a better way of determining the champion than the system that is in place now. It's a pipe dream, I know.