Havent they already effectively done that by agreeing to the current 2-team, one game playoff system? Also, I think that they can be bribed... more money with a larger playoff, and spread that money around in a way that gets a majority vote. It's the American Way!
I don't like that idea at all. Southern California is one of the most densely populated regions in the country. You think there is bias with concentrations of sports writers in specific regions of the country? Just see what happens when the public is allowed to vote on team strengths through the lens of misinformed cultural biases. How many arrogant New Yorker or SoCals would you ever to expect to vote for a strong LSU team if they think we're all just a bunch of inbred racists? We'd end up with something like 'Dancing With The Stars' where all the tea party people figured out that they could vote to keep Bristol Palin on the show by entering fake email addresses allowing them to vote hundreds of times. Even if they had a system that only allowed one vote per MAC address, you'd still have regional bias as outlined above. What they should have is an increase in actual computer rankings that rank teams by much much more than a won-loss record lattice. There is a guy on the Saints forum that I semi-frequent that does a thing called the "Wade Factor", where he compiles 3 key stats: scoring drive efficiency, possession efficiency, and turnover margin. Here is how he outlines his rankings: I'd love to see computer rankings based on about 10 similarly calculated ratios including one that could get to the heart of quality competition (perhaps even ranking talent and recruiting in some way).
They agreed on making sure their champ gets into a BCS bowl. ...part 2... would depend on how the money is split... losing in the first round, no new year's day appearance... is not the "profit" most would be looking for.
Agree with this. I don't really disagree that preseason rankings are basically a joke, but so many people love them I don't think we'll ever do away with them. I think they can be worked around, though, especially if we have a playoff where making the top 2 isn't the only chance of playing for it all.
I believe there could still be a "BCS" like clause for BCS conferences even if they don't make the playoff. There would also be room for BCS bowls not involved in the playoff on new year's day. Using BCS bowls as the semi-finals and championship game, one BCS bowl would not be part of the playoff each year, on a rotational basis. Maybe add the Cotton and/or the Capital One Bowls to the BCS mix, that would make for more room for guaranteed spots outside the playoff.
That's cool. I think margin of decision relative to quality of opponent would be a good category. A 21 point victory is impressive, and it is very impressive against the number 1 team in the nation. A 21 point loss is embarrassing, and it is very embarrassing against the number 120 team in the nation. Also when a team averages losing by 21 points, winning by 21 points is less impressive than when a team averages winning by 21 points.
Right now there are 10 BCS spots (5 games), and there are 6 of those spots guaranteed to the 6 AQ conferences. With a playoff system in place (like I outlined above) that "uses up" 3 BCS games, That leaves 4 spots (2 BCS games) available that would not be part of the playoff system. There could easily be an agreement/rule that would guarantee a spot to any AQ conference champion that doesn't make it into the 8-team playoff. Make the payouts involved for all teams more than what they get now, and I would hope you'd get agreement from enough conferences/teams.
