`Let’s crown a true National Champion and keep the bowls intact.

[RV]

Have a play in – not a play off.

There are six major conferences and each crowns a conference champion. Keeping the BCS system you then choose the top two rated teams that aren’t conference champs and give them berths as well.

You seed these 8 teams according to their BCS ranking and the higher seed hosts a play-in game during the middle of December. These games could kickoff the bowl season. There will be four winners and four losers so now you incorporate the BCS Bowls just as you do now. You pair the four winners in two of the BCS bowls and the four losers are paired in the other two BCS bowls on a rotational basis just as you do now. You even keep the conference affiliations where possible.

Six teams would play one more game and two teams would play two more games than they currently play.

After these games the two winners of the games that paired the four previous winners play one week later in the championship game just as they do now.

You get a national champ from their play on the field and the bowls stay intact.

The other bowls aren’t affected and choose from all the teams not in the play-in games.

[UKS2H]

AMEN! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[Brian McCat]

I´m with you, RV. The BCS is such a mess this year, that the NC will truly be a MNC.

[gerntz]

I don't care for the higher seeded teams getting home field advantage. Too much of an edge for mere opinion. That's no better than the BCS now. Otherwise it's fine.

Besides, who want to play in Michigan Stadium in the middle of December?

[KennesawCat]

Have a play in – not a play off.

There are six major conferences and each crowns a conference champion. Keeping the BCS system you then choose the top two rated teams that aren’t conference champs and give them berths as well.

You seed these 8 teams according to their BCS ranking and the higher seed hosts a play-in game during the middle of December. These games could kickoff the bowl season. There will be four winners and four losers so now you incorporate the BCS Bowls just as you do now. You pair the four winners in two of the BCS bowls and the four losers are paired in the other two BCS bowls on a rotational basis just as you do now. You even keep the conference affiliations where possible.

Six teams would play one more game and two teams would play two more games than they currently play.

After these games the two winners of the games that paired the four previous winners play one week later in the championship game just as they do now.

You get a national champ from their play on the field and the bowls stay intact.

The other bowls aren’t affected and choose from all the teams not in the play-in games.

I totally totally agree. I have discussed this nearly exact type of playoff scenario on this board before. The only difference in my version is the four losers of the play-in game aren't necessarily in any specific bowls. I don't like having a BCS bowl game with two losers of a play-in game.

So why can't all of those great minds get it! I think your play-off scenario would draw even more money because there are more bowl games that have championship implications, hence more TV revenue, etc.

[UedK]

Good stuff RV.

Kind of a crazy idea, but maybe the first round of four games could be played at two neutral sites on a Friday and Saurday, it would insure a sell out for all games but not require so many fans to travel to so many post season games. I think it would be one very hot ticket.

[jwade]

I would make only a couple of minor edits.
Some conferences crown their champs in a championship game while others use regular season records. This needs to change. I would require all the major conferences to hold a championship game so that every one of the champs will have played 13 games.
I would expand the at-large field from 2 to 4, seed them by BCS ranking, and have them meet in play-in games on the same weekend as the conference championship games. The two winners advance, and they will also have played 13 games just the same as the conference champs.I think it's important that if we're to use BCS rankings as a means of seeding the top 8 teams, they need to have played the same number of games.


Jim

[Chaz]

I would make only a couple of minor edits.

Some conferences crown their champs in a championship game while others use regular season records. This needs to change. I would require all the major conferences to hold a championship game so that every one of the champs will have played 13 games.
I would expand the at-large field from 2 to 4, seed them by BCS ranking, and have them meet in play-in games on the same weekend as the conference championship games. The two winners advance, and they will also have played 13 games just the same as the conference champs.I think it's important that if we're to use BCS rankings as a means of seeding the top 8 teams, they need to have played the same number of games.


Jim
Jim, good points and I believe very workable. I would also add that all play in games revenues be split 50/50 so the home team won't be deemed a financial advantage.

I like the idea of evening up the conferences having all conferences play a championship game to represent the conference.

[bret1555]

Have a play in – not a play off.

There are six major conferences and each crowns a conference champion. Keeping the BCS system you then choose the top two rated teams that aren’t conference champs and give them berths as well.

You seed these 8 teams according to their BCS ranking and the higher seed hosts a play-in game during the middle of December. These games could kickoff the bowl season. There will be four winners and four losers so now you incorporate the BCS Bowls just as you do now. You pair the four winners in two of the BCS bowls and the four losers are paired in the other two BCS bowls on a rotational basis just as you do now. You even keep the conference affiliations where possible.

Six teams would play one more game and two teams would play two more games than they currently play.

After these games the two winners of the games that paired the four previous winners play one week later in the championship game just as they do now.

You get a national champ from their play on the field and the bowls stay intact.

The other bowls aren’t affected and choose from all the teams not in the play-in games.

I know that I am the only person in the world that likes the bowl system & doesn't want a playoff. . . So, here goes anyway.

I could support this idea, but I think that you must make every conference play a championship game. I would also say NO polls untill after October 1st, period. . . It gives established programs too much of an advantage.

Ultimately, it would not matter because it would just replace a subjective, imperfect system, with another subjective, imperfect system. There is still going to be a subjective element to the final two teams that get in, that is just more argument. Again, you are always going to have a Boise State, Hawaii, et al. to complain about not being in the play-in.

[jwade]

What mitigates against this system is the introduction of additional games into an already-crowded calendar. For example,

The SEC began play the first weekend of September (actually it was Thursday, August 30, but the impact is the same) and the championship game was held on December 1. Thus, LSU and UT played 13 games in 14 weeks.

Now if you give LSU two weeks to rest and prepare for the play-in game, that game would be held on December 15. Let's assume they win and advance. If you give them two more weeks to rest and prepare, the semi-finals would be held on December 29. Let's again assume they win and advance. Two more weeks to rest and prepare would make the national championship game on January 12 (it currently is scheduled for January 7).

At this point, LSU would have played 16 games in 20 weeks. Is that too much punishment to expect 18-23 year old bodies to endure? Arguably so.

You could extend the calendar further into January to allow more regular season open dates for rest and recuperation, but you're already bumping up against the NFL playoffs. Further, if you extend play into the spring semester you could conceivably be playing (or not allowed to play) players who graduated after the fall semester and are therefore no longer enrolled at the university. Such players are allowed to play now, I suspect, because the spring semester hasn't yet begun. Allowing non-enrollees to play would take some major tinkering with the NCAA rules I suspect, but not allowing them to play casts into doubt the worthiness of the teams playing. [Caveat: I'm no expert on NCAA rules and am merely speculating here.]

You could start earlier in the year to provide more regular season open dates, but does the heat and humidity of playing in the south exacerbate the health risk to the athletes? It's often oppressively hot in Commonwealth in September, what would it be like in Baton Rouge in early August?

You could not extend the calendar but reduce the number of regular season games to allow more open dates, but AD's will scream about lost revenue.

Despite all this, I'm not saying that a playoff system isn't viable and I agree that a playoff would be superior to what we have now. My only point is, there's more at work than simply satisfying the fans' desire for a true National Champion. It's a complex issue that requires thought if it's to be implemented fairly and in such a way as to safeguard the well-being of the participants.


Jim

[UedK]

What mitigates against this system is the introduction of additional games into an already-crowded calendar. For example,

The SEC began play the first weekend of September (actually it was Thursday, August 30, but the impact is the same) and the championship game was held on December 1. Thus, LSU and UT played 13 games in 14 weeks.

Now if you give LSU two weeks to rest and prepare for the play-in game, that game would be held on December 15. Let's assume they win and advance. If you give them two more weeks to rest and prepare, the semi-finals would be held on December 29. Let's again assume they win and advance. Two more weeks to rest and prepare would make the national championship game on January 12 (it currently is scheduled for January 7).

At this point, LSU would have played 16 games in 20 weeks. Is that too much punishment to expect 18-23 year old bodies to endure? Arguably so.

You could extend the calendar further into January to allow more regular season open dates for rest and recuperation, but you're already bumping up against the NFL playoffs. Further, if you extend play into the spring semester you could conceivably be playing (or not allowed to play) players who graduated after the fall semester and are therefore no longer enrolled at the university. Such players are allowed to play now, I suspect, because the spring semester hasn't yet begun. Allowing non-enrollees to play would take some major tinkering with the NCAA rules I suspect, but not allowing them to play casts into doubt the worthiness of the teams playing. [Caveat: I'm no expert on NCAA rules and am merely speculating here.]

You could start earlier in the year to provide more regular season open dates, but does the heat and humidity of playing in the south exacerbate the health risk to the athletes? It's often oppressively hot in Commonwealth in September, what would it be like in Baton Rouge in early August?

You could not extend the calendar but reduce the number of regular season games to allow more open dates, but AD's will scream about lost revenue.

Despite all this, I'm not saying that a playoff system isn't viable and I agree that a playoff would be superior to what we have now. My only point is, there's more at work than simply satisfying the fans' desire for a true National Champion. It's a complex issue that requires thought if it's to be implemented fairly and in such a way as to safeguard the well-being of the participants.


Jim

Good points Jim,

Compare this to the FCSDiv1AA.

Their season began on August 25. Each team had a 12 game schedule. Their playoffs started the weekend before last with 16 teams in the mix. The final two teams will play for the championship on December 14th and will have played 16 games each in 18 weeks. A pretty grueling schedule.

For the FCSDiv1, I think for you let the lesser bowls play out and then start the two week playoff on the day after New Years and be finished the third week in January.

[The Old School JPS]

Besides, who want to play in Michigan Stadium in the middle of December?

This, I actually would favor in the postseason. Football is the one game that is intended to be played in any weather, and plenty of legendary and exciting games take place in snow, rain, mud, etc. I dislike the fact that the important postseason games are all of a sudden placed in what might as well be a sterile laboratory: an indoor stadium or Florida sunshine. That's not real football.

I would also say NO polls untill after October 1st, period. . . It gives established programs too much of an advantage.

How about rotating poll voters during the season? Deny poll voters the ability to cast ballots in consecutive weeks? There are plenty of supposed experts out there, plenty of talking heads and hype-seeking scribes; they are a dime a dozen and many who have ballots now are unmitigated bozos anyway. We could at least do something to remove their arrogant propensity to be tethered to their prior ballots and stick with their preseason opinions about which teams will be good and which won't.

[Doug Hardin]

I like the current system, but if I did want to tweak it, I'd like to see the Plus-One system that Phil Steele argues for in this year's magazine.

Basically you have a 4-team playoff. Why just four? Because when you're trying to figure out who deserves to play in the national title game, the debate hardly ever involves more than 3 teams.

The playoff takes two of the existing BCS Bowls (say, the Sugar and Orange). The Sugar Bowl would be between #1 and #4, and #2 and #3 would play in the Orange. The two winners play in the National Championship Game. The other 2 BCS Bowls--and non-BCS Bowls, I suppose continue on in the same way as they do now.

If you have a copy of Steele's preseason magazine, I'd recommend going back and reading that article. He goes through it year-by-year since the adoption of the BCS following the 1998-99 season and shows how a Plus One system ensures that any debates are settled on the field without de-valuing the regular season by letting 8 or 16 teams get in.

[Brandon]

ACC: Virginia Tech (11-2)
Big 12: Oklahoma (11-2)
Big East: West Virginia (10-2)
Big Ten: Ohio State (11-1)
Pac 10: USC (10-2)
SEC: LSU (11-2)
At-large: Georgia (10-2)
At-large: Hawaii (12-0)

Teams will be seeded according to BCS rank (to be released later tonight).

Saturday, December 22
Game 1: #8 Hawaii at #1 Ohio State (in Columbus, OH)
Game 2: #7 West Virginia at #2 LSU (in Baton Rogue, LA)
Game 3: #6 USC at #3 Virginia Tech (in Blacksburg, VA)
Game 4: #5 Georgia at #4 Oklahoma (in Norman, OK)

Tuesday, January 1
Game 5: Game 1 loser vs. Game 4 loser, at Rose Bowl
Game 6: Game 2 loser vs. Game 3 loser, at Sugar Bowl

Wednesday, January 2
Game 7: Game 2 winner vs. Game 3 winner, at Fiesta Bowl

Thursday, January 3
Game 8: Game 1 winner vs. Game 4 winner, at Orange Bowl

Saturday, January 12 (or perhaps earlier in the week)
National Championship: Game 7 winner vs. Game 8 winner, at Sugar Bowl

Seriously, NCAA. I don't understand what is so difficult about this. National title game site would rotate yearly of course, as it does now. Please install this system as soon as possible!!!

[RV]

Last BCS poll out

1 seed Ohio State – Big 10 champ
2 seed LSU – SEC Champ
3 seed Va Tech – ACC champ
4 seed Oklahoma – Big 12 Champ
5 seed Georgia – At large
6 seed Missouri – At large
7 seed USC – Pac 10 Champ
8 seed WVU – Big East Champ

Kansas finished 8th but would be the 3rd team from one conference which is against the rules
Hawaii finished 10th


Saturday, December 22
Game 1: #8 West Virginia at #1 Ohio State (in Columbus, OH)
The game that would have occured had the 'eers not choked

Game 2: #7 USC at #2 LSU (in Baton Rogue, LA)
Arguably the most talent assembled in one place on a college venue

Game 3: #6 Missouri at #3 Virginia Tech (in Blacksburg, VA)
Offense versus defense

Game 4: #5 Georgia at #4 Oklahoma (in Norman, OK)
Probably the two hottest teams at this time.

[wanderingcat]

Some years you will get a team that most consider the best team in the country as the "National Champion". Other years, with upsets, that will not occur. No matter what system you use, you end up with the winner of a tournament. But, it would be entertaining and fun and that is what it is all about anyway.

[The Old School JPS]

Saturday, December 22
Game 1: #8 West Virginia at #1 Ohio State (in Columbus, OH)
The game that would have occurred had the 'eers not choked

Game 2: #7 USC at #2 LSU (in Baton Rogue, LA)
Arguably the most talent assembled in one place on a college venue

Game 3: #6 Missouri at #3 Virginia Tech (in Blacksburg, VA)
Offense versus defense

Game 4: #5 Georgia at #4 Oklahoma (in Norman, OK)
Probably the two hottest teams at this time.


How I would predict it:

Ohio State over West Virginia
LSU over USC
Missouri over Virginia Tech
Georgia over Oklahoma

Then:
Georgia over Ohio State
LSU over Missouri

Then:
A really good game between Georgia and LSU for the national championship

[hoosierhateruklover]

16 or 32 team playoff....scrap the added 12th game that is nothing but a lousy cupcake game. Use the 4-5 weeks off to incorporate the rest of the playoff weeks. Use current bowl games as sites for all rounds of the playoffs.