I'm for a more nuanced playoff, but say we have a four team playoff consisting of AU, the Ducks, Boise, and TCU. Wisconsin, LSU, and Stanford are left out. LSU and Stanford don't have much of a gripe, another team from their conference is representing the conference LSU and Stanford couldn't win. Wisconsin has the biggest gripe, but had at least the opportunity that AU and the Ducks had and really a better chance than Boise or TCU considering they had the opportunity against strong competition to distance themselves from the rest of the nation. Losing a game takes the destiny out of your hands. You gripe about Boise and TCU, but... ...given the chance, I bet Boise and TCU would switch places with Stanford or LSU in a heartbeat. There is a lot to be said for being a member of a strong conference (money, consistent, beautiful money). Boise and TCU are victims of circumstance and have little control over the weak schedule they play. Both Boise and TCU have won every game, and within a reasonable doubt deserve a chance to play for a NC. LSU had the opportunity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt we deserved the same, but we lost. The regular season counts, and in many cases painfully. But I wouldn't want it any other way. I promise if given the chance LSU wouldn't switch with Boise. I guarantee! Personally, I'd let Wisconsin in, but we're talking strictly 4 team playoff here. I also believe SOS belongs in the rankings, but the BCS removed that to help USC out. I'd put it back in. Thank God college football isn't the NFL, but demolishing the conferences would make it more like the NFL than ever. A very good playoff can be made without touching college football conferences. BTW, the NFL playoff is full of inefficiencies and takes away from the regular season in a way a small college football playoff wouldn't.
If there was an 8-team playoff, AND the current BCS rankings were used, AND the current rankings remain unchanged at the end of the season, here's how the playoff rounds could shape up (for the sake of argument, the higher-ranked team is shown to advance to the next round): (Maybe the first-round games would be better in terms of TV rankings by spreading them out across Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, instead of all 4 games being on Saturday, December 18th.)
That's why I don't think 8 teams is enough. 16 teams. Every team that has a legitimate argument should be in the playoffs in a 16 team playoff. 8 teams, you are correct that you'd have teams that might have an argument that don't get a chance. In my proposal, every Div 1 conference would get their champ as a representative and the other 5 spots would go to at large teams. Most years, those are going to be the 2nd and 3rd place teams in some of the major conferences. Similar to basketball. If you win your conference, you automatically qualify for the tournament. If you don't win your conference, you better be ranked pretty high in the BCS rankings or whatever so you can get an at large bid.
A classic 16-team playoff, as you propose, is something I've also been a proponent of. However, does a 3 or 4 loss team deserve it simply by virtue of winning their conference? In the NFL, the answer is "yes". I now find myself agreeing with those that argue that once you lose one game in college, you lose a lot of the "deserves to be there" argument, and each loss thereafter means your claim of being deserving lessens considerably. Personally, I think that an 8 team system that guaranteed a spot to all undefeated teams (most would be in the top 8 of the rankings anyway, as is currently the case this year), and then the remaining teams are chosen based on the rankings, would do a "good enough" job of letting all of the "deserving" teams play for the national championship. I do keep an open mind on the subject - I think that any number larger than 2 and smaller than 17 would be better than the current system.
I think the answer is yes. I can't see any conference voting for a playoff that doesn't automatically include their champion. And if the goal is to not let the talking heads decide who get to be in the playoffs, it should only be the conference champs who get in. I can see where the SEC and perhaps even the Big Ten would be okay with additional teams in a playoff because they are the two conferences that often get two teams in the BCS bowls.... but the other conferences aren't gonna be as full of glee as we are when setting up a playoff. Personally, I believe it should be conference champions only. I see no other way of keeping the media bias out of it.... there will be plenty of good bowls fo the second place teams to strut their stuff. Plus, if you want to preserve the importance of conference play and winning your conference, this is it. .... just mho...
That may very well be the case. I wonder if a "consolation prize" could be arranged for any conference champion that currently would get a BCS bowl berth - there would still be bowl games under an 8-team playoff system, so maybe conference champions could be guaranteed a similar payout at a non-playoff bowl. Here's another way to keep media bias out of it - use a purely objective ranking system. But as much as I dislike the current ranking system, I believe that as the number of playoff spots increases, the more likely it is that the truly deserving teams will get into the playoff. It may put a team higher or lower than they deserve, and maybe the #9 team is more deserving than the #8 team, but it's less likely to be an issue when compared to the 2-team system we have now.
My thought, for what it's worth, is expanding the playoff to 16 teams requires four weeks... three of those weeks fans have 7 days for travel plans, getting tickets, and finding the $$ to fund it. Unless you're talking games on college campuses with the final at a destination site, there is a problem. The pros pull it off because it is set up exactly this way. I've never been in a playoff conversation where using existing bowls isn't part of the proposal. It may make sense in a plus one set-up to involve three bowls and have folks travel, but beyond that, it's a serious issue that always seems to get neglected.
That is an important thing to consider for sure. If you look at the hypothetical 8-team bracket I posted, you will see that the first round games would take place at the home of the top 4 teams. The winners would move on to New Years BCS bowl locations, then the championship would happen at a different BCS bowl about a week later. I thought that was doable.
A 16-team playoff would be terrible for the bowls. Also, team #16 does not deserve to play for a NC. An 8-team playoff is probably too big most years, but I think it could be stomached. I am in agreement with using BCS bowls to host the semi-finals and finals, with the BCS bowls rotating similar to the way they do now. I also think the higher seeded team hosting in the quarter-finals is the right thing to do. I think putting two weeks between rounds should be something to seriously consider. My main difference with most playoff proposals is that I think the playoff should be flexible between 2-8 teams. Conference champs that are high enough in the BCS rankings can be included (conference champs shouldn't qualify for an autobid regardless of BCS ranking). Any conference not represented by a conference champion can be represented by the highest ranked team provided they are high enough in the rankings. One team per conference unless one conference has team #1 and team #2.
