|
| | | 
Forum Guru
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 5/08/2010 11:48:00 PM
Posts: 52, Visits: 130 |
| So... since we all know (and have just had it proven to us once again) that the BCS just doesn't work, here's my idea for a playoff system. Just for the hell of it.
1) Scrap the conference championship games. Instead, this weekend would have been the first of a five round (32-team) playoff.
2) Invite the conference (or sub-conference) leaders, and fill the remaining 32 spots with "at-large" teams (i.e.: the rankings still play a part, but only to build the brackets)
3) Yes, there's going to be controversy here, of course. But I'd much rather have someone complaining about missing out because they're the 33rd-ranked team in the country than being the 3rd-ranked. Odds are, #32 isn't going very far anyway, #33 technically has less chance of progressing.
(Actually, #32 and #33 wouldn't have made it this year because my idea gets the leaders of the lesser conferences five spots - FAU (SunBelt), UCF (C-USA E), Tulsa (C-USA W), Miami OH (MAC E), Central Michigan (MAC W)) so the #28 at-large team from this season (Texas Tech) would have been the one missing out)
4) The better teams, in theory, have a chance of hosting 2 more games. That's two well-attended, if not sold-out, games worth of revenue.
5) The last three rounds replace, or are played as, the traditional top Bowl games. Neutral venues, tourist dollars, and all that stuff that the "big" bowl towns would complain about losing if a playoff system was to replace the bowl games.
(I think everyone agrees that there are too many bowl games now. 6-6 teams just shouldn't go bowling)
Because I have nothing better to do, here's how the first round of playoffs (that would have just been played) would have looked (I think). Remember, this is based on LAST week's BCS standings/conference leaders.
--------------
1.Missouri
32.Miami (OH)
16.Clemson
17.Oregon
----
8.USC
25.Boise State
9.Oklahoma
24.Auburn
----------
4.Georgia
29.Tulsa
13.Arizona State
20.Texas
----
5.Kansas
28.UCF
12.Hawaii
21.South Florida (ugh - how's THIS for a road game?!)
--------------
2.West Virginia
31.FAU
15.Illinois
18.Wisconsin
----
7.LSU
26.Connecticut
10.Florida
23.Cincinnati
----------
3.Ohio State
30.Central Michigan
14.Tennessee
19.Brigham Young
----
6.Virginia Tech
27.Arkansas
11.Boston College
22.Virginia
--------------
There are some pretty good matchups there. And it gives everyone what they want - a Champion decided by who's best on the field, at the business end of the season.
Feel free to tear this apart, just thought it'd be interesting to see what you guys think...
|
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/08/2008 2:29:58 PM
Posts: 7, Visits: 18 |
| It is cut and run stupidity for College football not to have a play off system. Rarely is anyone upset about who turns out to be the best College Basket Ball team after march madness has run its course, or who the best College Ice Hockey team is in the States. Fundamentally NCAA and conference chairmans and coaches and Athletic Directors respective positions on avoiding a playoff system, for me, doesn't come down to fairness or equality, it comes down to MONEY and TRADITION.
Understandably College football teams can't run the schedules of Hockey and Basketball teams due to injuries etc. and Colleges themselves have a right to capitalize on the BIG MONEY market that is NCAA sports, but as a fan of College football, i also don't want to see Bowl Games abandoned as Tradition and games like the Rose Bowl are bread and butter good times!!
As "Griff" outlined there are multiple methods to solving the bullet wound in NCAA FB. I think the best solution would be cutting the regular season to all Div 1 teams to 10 Games, having a conference champions in a playoff system for eligibility to a National Championship Bowl Game Played in situ with all the regular bowl games. So the system will be very similar to the one now, with a playoff scheme implanted and a shorter regular season. As with all suggestions it has faults, and ineptitudes, but somethings is better than nothing, especially when the race to a National Championship becomes a bum fight.
The BCS system is fine...... when you have 2 No loss dominating Conference powerhouses. But its pretty shabby when you have a unpredictable, upset ridden, multiple overtime ridden season like what we have had.
GO BLUE |
| |
| | |
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 5/08/2010 11:48:00 PM
Posts: 52, Visits: 130 |
| Yost (4/12/2007)
It is cut and run stupidity for College football not to have a play off system. The problem is that sport, and the nation, demand one single Champion. Not terribly tough when the competition is made up of 32 teams... pretty hard when there are 119. (Like you said, tough to schedule 118 opponents)
Yost (4/12/2007)
...as a fan of College football, i also don't want to see Bowl Games abandoned as Tradition and games like the Rose Bowl are bread and butter good times!!Thing is, the Rose Bowl is the only "traditionally" fixed matchup in a bowl game (I think... others used to be/are winner of ONE certain conference vs. "at large") and even now, that's not necessarily the case.
Maybe rig the above bracket to make sure that the leaders of these conferences would meet up in the semi-final or Championship Game (if they're both good enough to get that far) and play it at Pasadena - otherwise, the quarters and semis are played at the "big" bowl sites, with perhaps non-traditional teams.
Yost (4/12/2007)
...having a conference champions in a playoff system for eligibility to a National Championship Bowl Game My beef with this is that teams like Central Florida, Hawaii, Florida Atlantic and Bowling Green get into the playoffs, whereas Missouri, Florida, Georgia, Illinois and all the other teams who may have come second in a much tougher conference miss out.
I do think these "lesser" conference champions deserve a shot (perhaps not two from the big weak conferences like I'd laid out above) so that's why I added a few weeks and brought in more "at large" teams.
And... this still means there's a need for polls and computers, so there's still plenty for the analysts to talk about.
|
| |
| | | Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 20/02/2010 7:20:03 PM
Posts: 29, Visits: 166 |
| | Griff I suppose you would run the playoffs in December? What about exams for these athletic towers of learning? Although I suppose DIII run a successful playoff system so why not DI. DSM |
| |
| | |
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 5/08/2010 11:48:00 PM
Posts: 52, Visits: 130 |
| Yep I'd considered it and dismissed it for much the same reason you mentioned...
Another argument against it has been that the kids miss too many days of class when they have to travel. This week's SI had an article clamoring for a playoff system and they quoted the Texas A.D as saying "Football players miss four or five Friday afternoons a year - on a day most of them don't even have classes".
Of course... any final exams scheduled on a Friday might pose a problem for the away side at a playoff game. But to misquote James Caan in The Program, when's the last time 80,000 people turned up to see a kid do a chemsitry exam?
All I know is I could sure do with more games on TV right about now... I'm starting to suffer withdrawal.
|
| |
| | | Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 20/02/2010 7:20:03 PM
Posts: 29, Visits: 166 |
| | Perhaps they should start the first weekend in August instead of September and then have time to run the playoff system up to the first week of January. I mean God forbid that they run too far into January and disrupt the NFL playoffs.  |
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 7/07/2010 10:25:31 AM
Posts: 2, Visits: 3 |
| "To shop from the United States, It's a must-bookmark for anyone looking to shop from the United States offered by Viaddress.
I've used Viaddress to shop from Amazon.com & Ebay.com and it always worked great!
The registration is free on Viaddress. They provide you with a US virtual address that you can use to shop from any US merchants and have Viaddress forward your packages to your country."
|
| |
|
|