Since not every conference is equal some teams deserve a chance. You think WVU and Missouri are better than UF, UGA or even USC. I don't. In this system the best teams do not always get a chance to play for the title. That is a problem. What if Kansas would have went undefeated? You honestly think they could beat any of the 16 teams that would be in a playoff? I don't.
That's your perception. If we want to base the national champion on perception, why not just go back to letting the coaches and ap decide? I think strength of wins and losses should be considered, but some value should go into performance (W/L) instead of simply counting potential. If teams don't realize a certain amount of their potential, they don't deserve to play for a NC. The SEC could somewhat be artifically inflated (especially in a SEC fan's eyes). Teams that win during the regular season against a weak schedule are possibly excellent and possibly deserving of the ball of yarn. Teams that have lost have had the opportunity to play for the whole shabang but have fallen short. Ambiguity exists with the teams with a weaker SoS, but no ambiguity exists around teams that have lost a number of times.
Ok, maybe this year was not a good example, but yes if you lose your out. But what if LSU and Tenn were undefeated going into this champ. game and then you have a one loss Auburn, say a loss to LSU. The loser of the SEC champ game will be out and then you have this one loss Auburn who slides into the BCS games or playoffs. And we all know that say LSU lost they would be complaining because they made it to their conf. champ. game and just lost that one and here you have the Auburn team you beat going to the playoffs. I'm all for the playoffs, but I think there might be a few screws to tighten. I agree with you on this about seeing the games we won't because teams are now playing easier out of conference schedules just to get to the nat'l champ race. This will make it more exciting and really see who is better in the end.
The one thing that this guy is forgetting in all of this is that if we would go by this system, The Fighting Irish would have to join a conference. Otherwise, they would implement some type of rule stating that if Notre Dame finished a season with so many wins, they would get an automatic bid, thus leaving only 4 at large and somebody worthy being screwed. Of course this would all be irrelevant due to the fact that the fat bastard and his Irish suck right now. I like his basic formula. But I like 8 or 12 team playoff. Lots of things would have to happen first for any of this to happen. First ALL conferences would have to go to a conference championship game. Second would be the ND scenario I already mentioned. In my scenario, automatic bids would go out to the six BCS conference winners. Sorry Dan Wetzel, but no one from the Sun Belt deserves to be playing for a NC. Sorry, but college football will never be March Madness. In a 12 team playoff, you would have six conference winners, with the top 4 getting first round byes (4 best records....simple). Next would be 6 at large bids. An alternative may be to throw a 7th automatic bid out to a mid major who finished the year unbeaten. A selection committee does make sense. Playing and losing in your conference CG would not gaurantee you entry. For instance, would UT should they lose to LSU deserve to be in? I think not. Okay the matchups: 5-12 6-11 7-10 8-9 Once this happens, then re-seed the four first round winners. For instance: 12 upsets 5; 6 beats 11; 7 beats 10; 9 beats 8. 6 becomes 5 7 - 6 9 - 7 12 - 8 Then you have a normal 8 team playoff. 1 vs. 8 plays winner of 4 vs.5 and so on. Play home games until semi-final round. Use 3 current BCS Bowls for semi-final and final rounds, rotating one out every year. 1 vs. 5 in Rose 3 vs. 6 in Sugar 1 vs. 3 in Fiesta Next season, Fiesta rotates out, one of semi final venues rotates to CG, Orange rotates in. You can begin this the weekend after finals. Most schools take their finals the second week of December. You can start playing games that final Saturday of finals. I am sure if players have a final on a Saturday or a traveling day, something can be worked out. I was a graduated senior and was able to take a majority of my finals in my last semester when I wanted to. I didn't expect to go on this long with a whole new system. But once I started writing, I could not stop. Suggestions? Comments? Flaws?
No, if LSU and UT were undefeated, they'd be playing the SECCG for seeding in the playoffs. The winner would be #1 and the one-loss loser would be probably between 4 and 6. The one-loss Auburn in your scenario would be in, too. Probably one of the top 10 seeds, maybe even a higher seed than the one-loss UT or LSU. Now in this year's scenario, if LSU lost to UT, they'd be out b/c they'd have 3 losses and 2 in a row and probably be 15 or 16 in the BCS standings. That's a ticket home and probably to the Chick-fil-A Bowl.
I think that anything more than 8 teams is overkill. I don't think any conference should get a guarantee to play for the NC - as such, more reason to keep the non-playoff bowls alive and well and the playoff small I think nonBCS teams deserve an opportunity to play for the NC and should have slightly easier qualifying standards because any rating system has an inherent bias against teams from weaker conferences (teams from weak conferences would join a more reputable conference if the opportunity presented itself, and no school from a major conference would willingly leave for a minor conference so it would be easier to win a championship) I don't like giving conferences autobids, but I do agree that conference champions should have first dibs. I also believe in putting limits per conference to both spread the wealth and ensure a diverse representation (to overcome possible rating errors and having a variety of styles of football)
I really like this plan. I makes the regular season very very interesting by putting the pressure back on you to win your conference. But if you don't win your conference because there are two awesome teams in it, you have a chance to get in the hunt (but only if you really kick butt). And in order to get in the hunt as an at large bid, you really need tough out of conference games. Details that I would add: 1. The "major" bowls would not choose their teams until after the 2nd round of the play-offs so that the losers in the first two rounds could be invited. They could designate some bowls as "major" bowls and pre-allocate some non play-off teams as being in the major bowl category before the play-offs. Then after the first two rounds of play-offs, the major bowls could select their teams from the total pool. For example, if you have 10 major bowls you would pre-allocate 8 non play-off teams before the play-offs started. Then you take the 12 losers and combine them with the 8. The Sunday after the2nd round, you annouce the major bowl pairings. That way the minor bowls could choose their teams right away (since some of their games happen early). 2. Force all championships of the conferences to be settled on the Sunday after Thanksgiving with the play-offs starting two weeks later. Let the conferences decide their champions in any fashion that they choose. 3. I would also put the semi-finals as "bowl" games at neutral sites. That way there would be 3 bowls that would be involved in the play-offs. So you could take the current BCS bowls and rotate them in each year. The two that would be left out on any particular year would have first choice of any teams that lost in the first round (if they want them). 4. As someone else mentioned above, if there is a break between the 2nd and 3rd round of a couple of weeks it would work out very nicely. Have the first two rounds at the home stadium in early december (when the students might still be around) and then head off to the neutral sites at the end of December and early January.
The only reason a team is knocked out is because some group of people or a computer algorithm decides they are. There is no logical tiered process where you actually play the completion and move up like in a play-off. This is not "allowing" teams to lose. It is simply evaluating teams against their competition instead of the entire country of teams that never play and many times do not even have mutual opponents. Then, the best of the groups that actually engage in direct completion, have a play-off. This is certainly better than making guesses on what team "would" be better. Once again I don't see how the regular season equates to a play-off. A play-off is logical and structured. College football regular season is not. I understand the point you are trying to make - each game means more because if you slip up just a bit you are out. However, you cannot use straight win/loss to fairly judge teams in college football. Is an undefeated Big Sky team better than an one loss SEC team? I highly doubt. But why should it ever be left to debate anyway. Decide it on the field. This is my biggest beef with the system. How can you win your conference and not advance toward the championship? It's like winning the pennant but not being allowed to play in the World Series because some sports writers randomly decided another team should play instead.
