A lot of us have talked about eliminating the current BCS system and using an 8 team playoff for college football under the belief that the SEC teams would show how much better that they are on the field then a lot of the "weak" conferences. While I also am of the belief that the SEC is a much stronger conference than the others, I think that the SEC would actually be hurt by a playoff system. The SEC already has the most BCS chapinoships by winning 40% of them since the BCS was implemented and has only had one case where an SEC team really got screwed(Auburn '04). Over the last few years, a lot of the media sentiment has been that the top SEC team more times then not has earned a title bid when it comes down to an equal or slightly worse record based upon their body of work after the Auburn debacle, Florida getting in last year, and LSU this past season. In a playoff system, the SEC champion would lose the one thing that is its biggest ally in the championship game. This would be the time off to heal from the physicality of playing in the SEC. We all saw how worn down LSU has gotten from playing so many tough teams in a row from the 2005 and this past season. Playoffs would probably begin within two weeks maximum of the end of the regular season. Unless teams were able to get a well placed bye at the end of the season, the SEC would be suiting itself in the foot under the current 12 game schedule, SEC Championship game, and then moving straight into the playoffs.
Very good post. I would love to see a playoff, for two reasons. It would allow for some games in the Horseshoe, which would really get the folks here in columbus jacked up, and bring a lot of $$$ into town (I work in the service industry). Secondly, it would have allowed (using this year as an example), for the bucks to "Warm up" against someone not quite as tough right off the bat, and in the case the B10 is down (not frequently, but definitely this year and last), it would allow them to work some things out b4, and if, they got to the NC game.
I like a flexible playoff that would most times have more than 4 teams. This would usually (almost always) allow at least the top 2 teams a break during the first weekend of a 4+ team playoff. Since the inception of the BCS, no more than 6 teams would have been involved in my playoff, which means the top two teams wouldn't play until late December.
Although I like the idea it will never happen. The closest thing would be the plus one. Take the top 8 teams in the BCS standings and seed them in the BCS bowls then run the numbers for the final out of the winning teams.
Teams ranked #1 & #2 get a bye in the first and second rounds. Teams ranked #3 & #4 get a bye in the first round only. Teams #5, #6, #7 and #8 play the first round in early December on home turf of #5 and #6. The winner of 5 & 6 plays team ranked #4 in the second round on their home turf. The winner of 7 & 8 plays team ranked #3 in the second round on their home turf. Second round winners then play teams #1 & #2 in the premium BCS level bowl games on January 1st. Plus one BCS bowl takes the winners of the 2 premium BCS level bowl games. In this scenario, # 3 and #4 would only have to play three games and #1 and #2 would only have to play two games. If you go back to an 11 game schedule, #1 or #2 wins the NC game in as little as 13 games. SEC #1 or #2 in 14 games. Bottom line: The revenues from those final 3 playoff bowl games would be substantial. The playoff games would be televised which would increase revenue even before the first bowl games would begin. I just don't see how the media number crunchers would be in all that much fear of a falloff. Must be the POWER that they crave?
So, 3,4,5, & 6 get rewarded with an actual home game, while 1 and 2 get to only play at neutral sites?
