This is likely what it will end up being, but I would prefer a 16 team playoff. Everybody joins a conference. 16 conferences...16 teams. If you can't win your conference, you can't win the whole ball of wax.
Oh and I would prefer a 16 team playoff schedule as well that way every one of the 11 conference winners would get an invite, just like in basketball. Then there would be 5 invites or wild cards. I think this would be more of an incentive to actually join a conference.
Well, yes that too but my point was right now Notre Dame has no need to join a conference, they can be an independent and still enjoy BCS status and that is the major reason they have abstained from joining a conference. I think this is hurting them now though in recruiting.
Winning the SEC is a hell of a lot tougher than winning conference USA..... That would also make non-conference game absolutely meaningless (the OSU - UT games that were huge early on in that season would be just another pre-season game) What they should do is a have a 6 conference winners + 2 at large teams from the major conferences play 2 teams chose from of the mid-major conference Champions for the final two spots in the playoffs. This system is good because: It gives benefit to playing in a tough conference/having a tougher non-conference schedule as two major conference teams on the bubble and the two at large non major conference champs will still need a damn impressive strength of schedule to get in. At the same time, it benefits conference champs with bye in the first round Traditionally strong programs would be more willing to play a non conference schedule as they can lose and still get into the playoffs and they might need the win if they happened to not win their conference. It gives the weaker conferences a shot at the title at the same time also force them to play some tougher non-conference opponents (only 2 of the weaker conference champs can make the at large)
That coaches poll is so stupid I think coaches must have their brains shot. I don't have problem not ranking Michigan, but how can you rank PennState while not ranking Michigan. PennState is dominated by Michigan while they played and lost to Purdue (Purdue people!!) who was dominated by Michigan again. Both are 5-2. There is no way you can honestly say PennState is a better team.
Part of the point of having a system where every conference champion gets to compete for the NC is that in a short time...Conference USA won't be too much easier to win than the SEC. It promotes parity, and makes college football a better product overall.
Dammit USF. just ruined everyones plans of invalidating the BCS. Hopefully we can now get like 10 1 loss teams...
I think the best bet for blowing up the BCS is having Oregon, Cal, Oklahoma, Kansas, USF, West Virginia, Ohio State, LSU, Florida, etc all with 1 loss and create complete chaos as to who gets selected with all these teams having an argument. It also really puts into question the dumb 4 team "plus-one" idea.
I'm praying everyone has at least 1 loss. Then my Gators have a remote chance of making the championships. My logic is it was very possible a 1-loss SEC team would get the bid over some undefeated teams.
The USF QB sucks. No internal clock and completely incapable of simply throwing the ball away. 7 sacks? And Rutgers scored 10 points off a fake punt and a fake FG.
Huh? How does it do that? Your theory sure doesn't work in college basketball and wouldn't in football either. Athletes choose colleges based on history, tradition, mega-dollar facilities, mega-dollar coaches, fanatical boosters and other "enticements" in both sports. Whatever playoff system emerges, the major conferences will continue to dominate because the almighty dollar rules college football recruiting.
If you win a weakfish conference and don't play any major schools in non-conference games you shouldn't be invited to a playoff. The 5th best team in the SEC (much less the 2nd place team) deserves an invite more than the winner of the Pinky League Conference.
I saw a study somewhere a while back that looked at rankings of teams pre-BCS and post-BCS. In the pre-BCS era through the mid 1990's, non-BCS schools were ranked substantially higher overall than since. Basically, since the BCS was formed, either non-BCS teams are dismissed by pollsters or the talent is more concentrated amongst BCS schools (their theory) - not because of tradition, but because that's how you get on the national stage to push your pro career.
I have to admit the complete control the big 6 conferences have over college football bothers me a lot. I think it would be better if talent was spread out more than it is now. But I doubt letting a few of the tiny schools into a playoff would change the overall competitive balance of college football. Besides the BCS, other dynamics now are different than in the past. Warm weather schools have a bigger recruiting advantage than before, which is why the Big 10 and Notre Dame are less relevant and why the SEC and Florida schools seem to thrive more than ever. I still think much of it comes down to money. The separation between the haves and have-nots has grown to a vast chasm and continues to get wider. Seriously though, if a 16 team playoff would spread talent out, I'm all for it. Just as long as they shorten the college football schedule by one or two games, which (because of money) will happen when it snows in Houston on July 4th.
Essentially a four team playoff. The idea was to add a 5th bcs game. 2 teams would then play into that championship game from two other BCS bowls. If there were a bunch of 1 loss teams, then there would be no way to clearly determine 4 teams. It would create the same headaches of the current BCS.
