From what I understand, the odds of a plus-one are very high. And within the confines of the system, I like that. The bigger a playoff field, the higher likelihood of a fluke game that knocks out a superior team before the championship. If the goal's to find the best team in the country, you don't want a spoiler knocking out a juggernaught. I also don't see how a 16-team playoff (5 rounds/weeks) could possibly work, unless the College Football season is extended into late January. Already you have issues with December (Finals, Christmas break). The biggest I could see this getting is 12 (11 conferences and a WC to give Independents a chance) where the top 4 get a bye. Of course, there are 5 conferences that probably don't fit anymore next to the superconferences. I keep saying/thinking that it's time for the NCAA to break Div I in half and let the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, and maybe the Big East be the BCS Division. Sun Belt, Mid-American...come on. Split off the semi-Pro programs and it makes a lot easier to implement long overdue changes - let those big TV money schools pay their football players minimum wage like the work-study programs they really are without having to press small money schools like Buffalo to match. That gives you 6 superconferences that can be the separate minor league that they already are at heart. Don't allow them to schedule fluff non-conference games outside of the new superdivision (looking at you, UT). Top two teams from each conference makes for a 12 team playoff, similar to what I mentioned about. Bottom 8 play a round (Top 4 Bye), last weekend of Nov Winners face the Top 4, first weekend of Dec SemiFinals NYE Weekend Championship two Mondays later.
Yeah I'd take the plus 1. Snubbing #5 is much easier than snubbing #3. If it was a 16-team setup, would you want the system we always see thrown around which would have included teams from the lesser conferences? This year you'd get Southern Miss, Arkansas State, etc... I prefer the top 16 get in somehow personally. Its unfair to keep teams like Arkansas and KSU out IMO -- but I do understand a need for conference affiliations. I still think only the current BCS conferences should be guaranteed spots, screw CUSA (no offense, but seriously).
The absolute maximum I can see as a possibility would be a 6 team play-off with #1 and #2 drawing a bye. You could call the Rose Bowl the Western Regional and the Orange the Eastern. The Semi's could be the Sugar and the Fiesta and then your Championship. Simply put, the plus-one would match the No. 1 team in the BCS standings after the regular season against the No. 4 team in a bowl game, and No. 2 against No. 3 in another, creating two national semifinals. The winners would play in a championship game the following week. http://espn.go.com/college-football...ies-officials-discuss-possible-format-changes
I think 12-teams would be ideal. Automatic qualifier conference champs are in, 6 at-large to the next six teams in the BCS standings regardless of conference affiliation or any other silly rule. Seeding based on BCS standings, top 4 teams get a first round bye.
I absolutely love college football until the weekend after Thanksgiving. It is still the only sport to have its exhibition season after the regular season. This BCS game doesn't even feel that important because its been SOOOO long since the teams have played. The teams are certainly not as sharp as they were at the end of the season. I won't be happy until there is a real playoff system, and I don't believe a Plus-One qualifies. I'd be satisfied with an 8 Team playoff, but I want the first round to be within 2 weeks of the end of the CFB regular season and then have each subsequent round 2 weeks later. All the other Bowls can continue on as usual in their exhibition glory that they are.
Really underrated point there. The lag in games... it really tends to hurt the gameplay. You also have a lot of the best players on the field thinking about the combine, and the lesser bowls have little meaning. When the Aggies get into the Cotton Bowl, a good bowl, I never get down about a loss. Its just a meaningless game IMO. The important thing was getting there. Winning doesn't matter.
I don't think I'd automatically give bids to conference winners. Maybe conference winners with the qualifier that you must be in the top 20 or 25. Nobody wants to see an 8-4 WAC Champ in the playoffs. This year, you'd get Southern Miss (Top 25) in but Arkansas State and Northern Illinois would just miss out.
16 teams or 12 teams would be the same amount of time. The only difference would be that there would be four more games the first week instead of byes. Either way in week 2 you have 8 teams left.
4 weeks. Teams are already practicing all that time anyway. Other sports like basketball are all playing games in that time frame and no one complains about them playing during finals and semester break. The football teams at the FCS, DII, DIII, and NAIA levels all play playoffs and it's never been an issue. How can you say that it doesn't work when it already works at every other level? Sam Houston finished their regular season and played 3 playoff games by mid-December. Then they waited 3 weeks to play the championship game. Now, the FBS schedule takes a little longer because of conference championship games and the week they give solely to Army/Navy. The conference championships took place the same week as the first round of FCS playoffs. But if you give teams a week off between the conference championships and the first round (which is when bowl games start anyway) then you're on the exact same schedule we have now with the championship game being held about a week after New Years. Division 1 is already split in half. It used to be called I-A and I-AA and now it's called FBS and FCS. You want to break half of it into another half.
NO no no. That's the fun of a playoff system, everyone has a chance to win the title. A long shot trying to beat the number one seed is fun and exciting. What's wrong with the College basketball tournament? If a number 1 seed can't beat a 16 seed then I don't think they have anything to complain about. The Team that wins the Championship would have to win it on the field and not in the polls.
I think that puts you right back where you started with certain conferences getting the shaft. If every conference winner qualified, you could truly say that any school in the country could win the NC any given year. And if your school gets pushed out because of an 8-4 conference winner, well, you probably didn't have much of a shot anyway.
It should be 6 teams, that would squash any arguments over legitimacy of champions...i dont think ive ever seen a team higher than 5 claiming they deserve a shot but i'll take a 4 team anyday as long as its a damn playoff finally and if it ends up being alabama lsu, who cares as long as they got there via a playoff.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...lection-committee-potential-four-team-playoff HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- Commissioners of the 11 Football Bowl Subdivisions conferences are still considering a proposal that would use a selection committee to choose the teams for a potential four-team playoff, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and SEC commissioner Michael Slive said after BCS meetings on Wednesday. Using a committee similar to the one used to select the 68-team field for the NCAA men's basketball committee is just one of the proposals being discussed and debated in daylong meetings at a beachside resort here. FBS conference commissioners, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, network TV executives and other college football officials will meet again on Thursday. Commissioners will then take the proposals back to their respective university presidents, athletic directors and coaches. A final decision about changing the format in how college football determines its national champion probably would come before the end of the summer, possibly as early as late June. A selection committee was first proposed a few months ago, but didn't seem to carry much weight at the time. Under current BCS rules, the top two teams in the final BCS standings play in the Allstate BCS National Championship Game. If conference commissioners approve a four-team playoff, which would pit four teams in two semifinal games and the winners in a championship game, a selection committee could choose the teams, or the BCS standings could be tweaked to put greater emphasis on factors such as strength of schedule. "I think (a committee) is worth looking at," Slive said. "I think in the final analysis, we need to look at the entire process. That's a matter that applies to any format." Scott said commissioners spent more than four hours on Wednesday discussing how the teams would be selected in a four-team playoff. "There's a lot of open issues about how you select the four teams that are in," Scott said. "Is it current BCS standings, conference champions, some change to the ways the computers work to emphasize strength of schedule or a committee? How do you pick the teams? That might impact how the Pac-12 feels about a particular model." Scott wasn't ready to say that he would embrace a selection committee because he prefers a more objective approach to selecting the teams to play for a national championship. "I'm trying to stay open-minded about how a committee could work," Scott said. "In basketball, it's established. At first blush, it feels a little counterintuitive to me in how the world has gone and what I think our fans want, which is more objective and more transparent and utilizing technology. I think this is an opportunity for college football to leapfrog forward and to write some more objective system. It doesn't mean that committees can't work, but it just wouldn't have been my first thought." Scott said if college football decides to expand its championship format beyond two teams it needs to make sure the selection process is transparent. "I think if we're going to expand beyond (numbers) 1 and 2, we all accept that there's a lot of subjectivity," Scott said. "The difference between 2 and 3 could be a decimal point. If -- and I keep underlining if because it's not a foregone conclusion that we'll get there -- we go to a four-team playoff we're essentially going to put more stock in a more credible, objective, fair system of balance and strength of schedule because we all don't play over the same course. Every conference has different caliber, some conferences play nine conference games and some play eight, some play stronger out-of-conference competition and some tend to not and just want to get home games. There are a lot of variables." Scott also favors a proposal that would allow only conference champions to participate in a playoff. Last season, No. 2 Alabama defeated No. 1 LSU 21-0 in the BCS National Championship Game, after the Crimson Tide didn't win the SEC or SEC West. "We're warm to that idea, for sure, and we're having a good discussion and exchange of ideas about it," Scott said. "There's certainly no consensus in the room. I'm in favor of more objective criteria and rewarding performances in the regular season than less subjective, like a team getting in a playoff versus not based on a decimal point change here or there. It doesn't feel very satisfactory, especially when you don't understand how the formulas work. Earning it on the field and placing value on the regular season are principles that we feel strong about. (Under a conference champions-only plan) everyone knows the deal at the beginning of the year." Slive said he was opposed to the conference champions-only proposal, saying he preferred to choose the best four teams, regardless of whether they won their conference championships or not.
Everything I've been reading is saying a 4 team playoff is all but a done deal. I think this is great because as we know, once the dollars and interest start to roll in they expand.
Any more info on the setup? It's not fair if two teams cant get into the final four from the same conference.
Why? Your conference round robin is the first round of the playoffs. If you don't win that, you're eliminated.
