I know it has been discussed here before but now we have some new energy in this debate as Obama as specified in several interviews he would like to see a playoff system instituted in the FBS. Do you share his opinion? Why or why not? Pros and cons of each system? What would you like done? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3708348 President-elect Barack Obama would like a college football playoff. The BCS' response? We'll listen, but ... BCS coordinator John Swofford responded to a stepped-up playoff push by Obama that was broadcast on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday. President-elect Obama also lobbied for a college football playoff in an interview with ESPN that was broadcast the night before the presidential election during halftime of Monday Night Football. "First of all I want to congratulate newly elected President Obama and I am glad he has a passion for college football like so many other Americans," Swofford said in a statement. "For now, our constituencies -- and I know he understands constituencies -- have settled on the current BCS system, which the majority believe is the best system yet to determine a national champion while also maintaining the college football regular season as the best and most meaningful in sports." Swofford added: "We certainly respect the opinions of president-elect Obama and welcome dialogue on what's best for college football." Obama said he will use his influence to create such a system. "If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system," he told reporter Steve Kroft. According to Obama's proposed system, eight teams would play over three rounds to settle the national champion. "It would add three extra weeks to the season," he said at the conclusion of a wide-ranging interview. "You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."
I like the BCS but it needs adjustments. For instance only 2 teams per conference allowed in bcs game. And the biggest thing id change is every conference needs a championship game its bs the pac 10 and sec just sit back and watch.
OK, I'll come out and admit it: I love the BCS! I love bowl season! I love college football exactly like it is! However, I'll make an argument as to why a playoff system will never happen, regardless of whether you want one or not. I think major college football (Division 1A) is a unique sport in the sense that there are so many teams supposedly competing under the same rules. If you keep things the way they are, I believe that the BCS is the best way to decide a national champion. You take the top two ranked teams using as fair of a formula as possible and have them play for the title. If you wanted to incorporate a playoff system, I argue that you would need to completely change the face of college football. This isn't a bad thing, but it would be necessary. As it is, you have about 120 teams competing in FBS. If you want to incorporate a playoff system, I think it would be best to create a new division of college football in which you only have the top conferences competing (SEC, Big XII, ACC, Pac 10, Big 10 (mayyybe the Big East or Mountain West). You would also need to create a new second tier of college football for the rest of the colleges currently competing at 1A. I don't think any of the smaller conferences would agree to being relegated to the "minor leagues" because there is still significant money in television and bowl game rights as things currently exist. I don't think the big six conferences will ever agree to an 8 team playoff unless each conference is guaranteed a spot in the playoff. Every conference would demand that their champion is represented in the playoff. This would leave two at large spots. Lets play it out this year: ACC: Maryland or Miami (or the other 4-5 team still alive for the title) SEC: Alabama or Florida Big XII: Missouri or Big XII south winner Pac 10: Oregon State or USC Big Ten: Penn State, Michigan State, or Ohio State Big East: Cinci, Pitt, or WV Now, this would leave two at large spots. In any potential agreement, I'd have to think that the smaller conferences would demand that their teams are eligible for the playoffs. Would they accept a system in which they'd have to be one of the top two ranked at large teams in order to get in? I seriously doubt it. They only have to have a team in the top 14 in order to qualify for the BCS, so why would they decrease their shot at a big payment? Naturally, the conferences would probably demand that each conference can only have a maximum of two representatives. There is just no way that this will happen. The conferences wont agree to it. You'd have a team like Cinci or Pitt taking up a spot, another one to a team like Maryland, and then you have the potential for upsets in the championship team. This format would virtually lock out any small conference team. There is very little chance that a small conference team would ever be in the top two at large spots. For example, this year, Utah is #7 overall, but they'd be the 5th ranked at large team. Under an 8 team playoff format incorporating conference champions with auto-bids, you'd end up with a bunch of teams that aren't anywhere near being the overall best teams competing for the championship. You'll still end up with a 4 or 5 loss conference champion in the playoffs while a 1 or 2 loss team from another power conference is sitting at home (or playing in a lower tier bowl game). Unless there is some mass protest among college fans where they simply stop going to games and bowl games, a playoff wont happen. People need to shut up about it unless they're going to stop spending any money on watching college football.
Okay I see two options.... We Need Playoffs, Stat! Incorporate Both to make Everybody Happy Shouldn't it be just 1 option? We need playoffs stat to make everybody happy
It's not the Pac10's fault that these other conferences are so big that they can't play everyone in the regular conference season. The Pac10 has stayed at 10 teams so every team has an equal shot to win the conference and everyone plays everyone else. In the B12, for example, Kansas has to play Tech/OU/Texas this year while Missouri only had to play Texas of that bunch. So even if they were otherwise equal teams, Missouri would have had the advantage (and vice-versa last year). The conference championship game is a necessary evil for these big conferences to prevent ties, but the Pac10's round robin is the ideal setup. The Big10, on the other hand, is the worst of both worlds, where you could have two undefeated teams in conference since not everyone plays each other.
I'm in the minority of preferring the BCS to an eight-team playoff. But my ideal is a four-team playoff, aka the "plus one" model. I think that's the best and most realistic compromise between not leaving teams out in the cold and still preserving the integrity and meaning of the regular season.
I would do a 12-team playoff, with 4 teams getting byes - that creates a real reward for being in the top tier, so the "every game counts" thing still applies. This year, you'd have: ACC Champ BigEast Champ Penn State (B10 Champ) Alabama (SEC Champ) Tech (B12 Champ) USC (Pac10 Champ) 6 Wildcards: Texas OU Florida Utah Boise State Missou or Ohio State Alabama, Tech, USC, and Penn State would have byes (I would give that to the top 4 conf champs only as a reward for winning your conference).
So what happens to the byes if a team wins the conference championship but clearly isn't the highest ranked team from that conference? Oregon State has a very legitimate chance to win the Pac 10 this year. What if Missouri wins the Big XII this year? Probably the best example of this in recent history is LSU winning the SEC in 2001 with a 5-3 regular season conference record. Additionally, I don't think that there is any way that certain conferences would agree to give other conferences a bye in the playoffs due to their supposed superiority. There's too much ego and reputation on the line.
That's tough luck for the team that couldn't win their conference. If OSU wins the Pac10, they earned it - they had the same record as USC and won head-to-head. But it would be based on which four conference champs are highest ranked. So if OSU wins the Pac10, it might be Utah or the ACC/BigEast champ that gets the bye. (Utah's not automatically in since they aren't a Big6 conference, but as a conference champ, they would still be in the mix for an auto-bye) What this allows is for a field that's big enough that any potentially deserving team is in, so the minor conferences like the WAC/MAC/MW/etc would be on board. And the top teams still have a significant advantage that an 8 or 16 team playoff wouldn't offer.
Forget the *media* favoritism of the major six conferences. You win your conference, you earn the chance. Take the Conference champs of the 12 conferences and 4 wildcards (most likely the losers of conference champ games). 16 team playoff. Go from there... You could keep the existing bowls as well. The losers of the first round could be assigned to any empty slots in the other bowls. But it makes too much sense...
The BCS is the result of collusion between the six big conferences & Notre Dame to enhance and ensure their revenues. They make allowances for BCS busters to maintain the slightest appearance open competition but it's just a sham. Man up. Make it a tourney of the six conference champions and call it the Major Conference Championship. (And hurry up and put Notre Dame in the Big 10 for heaven's sake)
The thing I don't like about the BCS is it excludes too many schools from potentially making the title game and it's one of the biggest reason I am not a fan of college football. It sucks to know that a college team you follow has a zero percent chance of getting into the national title <strike>game</strike> contention when the season starts.
I guess I am the minority here as I like the BCS even though I think there should be changes to it. No matter what system they come up with, somebody is going to be left out. What makes college football so different and exciting is the fact that every game counts. If there is a playoff system, I am not sure the regular season games would be as exciting.
Does every game count, though? If so, why is Florida in the driver's seat, despite a home loss to Ole Miss? Is it fair that if their name weren't Florida, they wouldn't be in consideration? It seems every game only counts in certain circumstances and for certain teams. Last year, both of the teams in the title game lost a game in late November. LSU lost their last regular season game, at home, to unranked Arkansas - clearly that game didn't matter. If you have limited wildcards and/or bye week rewards for top teams, every game still matters in a properly done playoff system.
Yes the Big 10. I knew that I meant that it shouldnt. The Big 12 might have 3 teams with one loss. One will be outside looking in thats garbage. Note to self-Don't post until after lunch on Mondays.
That's what I hate the most. Try telling Rice fans or Utah fans or Marshall fans that they have a chance at the title game with one loss. Try telling them they have a chance at the title game with no losses. You can't.
Keep the BCS. Take top 4 ranked (by BCS) teams that also won their conference. Yes, this means the Big 12 could only have 1 team in this, but if you don't win your conference, you can't win the national title in this scenario. Have them play and winners play in the plus one. Send the other top teams to the remaining two BCS games and continue to rotate. In addition, make every conference have a title game. Let them choose how to select the teams that face each other in title game, whether it is North and South divisions or just the top two teams in the conference. This gives you a mini playoff system and keeps the bowls intact, everyone is happy except for that 5th team that did not make it. This will always be the case.
