The only thing I see wrong about this are the teams that make it to the BCS bowls. Like ND, they make it in for their crazy rules when they aren’t even deserving of that, like when they played you guys. Or what if Tenn were to beat LSU in the champ. game then tenn would get a bid to the bcs bowl, as would uga, and a good LSU team would be left out, but clearly if Tenn were to lose they don’t deserve one, that is just an example for now. That’s the same for any conference that has three good teams in a year, someone is going to get left out. I guess the only thing to say to those teams is you better win those games.
Well I guess the person above me kind of answered that by not having conf. champ. games, but again, what happens if you have three good teams in a conf, then what?
If LSU loses to UT, why would they deserve to be in the playoffs? They should consider the SECCG the first round of their playoffs. They lose, they're out. Give me an 11 game regular season. Mandatory conference championship games. 16 team playoffs.
The worst one doesn't make it. This article is awesome, and just thinking about some of those cross conference games (That we almost never, ever see anymore) is exciting. Hopefully something similar happens sooner than later.
These discussions are always downright depressing. Every year there are a hundred or so of them on here. Same stuff, different year. Rather than talk about playoff scenarios, what can we as fans do to bring such a thing to a reality? It's just plain crazy! What other sports decide their champion in such a manner? It's obvious that a playoff is needed, yet we have the and the BCS shoved down our throats.
this scenario is very, very similar to the one a fellow TigerForums poster posted up a few weeks back.
Exactly. And playing for home field advantage should keep the regular season games interesting, while keeping fans financially glued to games they don't care about.
It wouldn't be without controversy, but if a 9-3 team is the conference champion, so be it. They earned their right to a BCS game. Now they have to win it to move on. Bottom line is that the championship is decided on the field and current bowl structure; which seems to be the biggest obstacle to overcome, stays in tact. Right, 3 game playoff. My bad. I'll let those implementing this decide the details, but I wouldn't be opposed to a neutral site away from the other BCS games to hold all 3 games. Atlanta maybe?
We need an investigation into how much money is going under the table to the school/conference leaders. That's the only thing I can see standing in the way of the NCAA instituting the same playoff format it currently uses for Div I-AA and Div II. We know a playoff will generate more money than the bowl system so the issue can only be one thing: if they prefer the bowls then where is the money going? That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with the major bowls acting as semi-final and championship sites. And the minor bowls could be consolation games for first round losers.
To clarify that, they're getting less money from the bowls so why do they like it better? The school/conference leaders must know they won't get anything under the table from an NCAA playoff like they would under the current system. Solution: find a way to take the decision away from them.
