Alright, All you 16 team playoff Honks!!!

[Schmoe]

Here's what it boils down to: There are so many intangibles, differences in SOS, matchups, timing, etc. etc. etc. So to give the top 1/10 of college football a chance to prove that they actually are the best is great. If you're not the best, then you will lose, and therefore your chance is over. If you are the best, you will win out, and be crowned gloriously because your team definitely proved it on the field and not some group of money-hungry bureaucrats in an air conditioned room somewhere. We give lots of teams a shot because there is a chance, however small, that they may be the best team, we don't crown all 16 teams, we just give them a chance unlike the current system.

[stuckinbig10country]

Nice try rasta, but that's even more complicated and convoluted than what we have now. There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.

Here is the easy way to do it, and we can even use the national polls and computer rankings to come up with the seeding and 5 at large teams (I bet the AP would even join in on this one). We could even use the BCS's rules of no more than 2 per conference, no more than 3 losses, etc. I would even keep the Notre Dame rules in there.

The top 11 seeds would be the conference champions (this year it would be Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, Boise St, Oregon, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Central Michigan, East Carolina, and Troy).

The next 5 in the rankings would then be considered (Florida #5, Iowa #10, Va Tech #11, LSU #12, Penn St #13). In this group, the SEC and Big 10 have two contenders. My first criteria would be head to head (in this case FL and Iowa get in, along with Va. Tech). If they didn't play eachother, the next tie breaker would be in-conference record. If that still doesn't select one, go with the rankings. So now you have your 12, 13, and 14 seeds. There can be no more representatives from the SEC, ACC, and Big 10.

The next highest ranked team is BYU (this year), they would get the number 15 seed. The next highest ranking is Miami, and they do not qualify based on they would be the 3rd ACC team. The next team is West Virginia from the Big East, and they would get the 16th and final seed.

Here would be the initial list of games.

1. Alabama 2. Texas
16. West Virginia 15. BYU

8. Georgia Tech 7. Ohio St
9. Central Michigan 10. East Carolina

5. Boise St 6. Oregon
12. Florida 11. Troy

4. TCU 3. Cincinnati
13. Iowa 14. Virginia Tech

Now I would make changes so that members of the same conference can't meet until the finals and prevent first round and if possible 2nd round rematches (only protecting the higher seeds-since I don't have all the schedules memorized, I didn't do this step, but I don't think there are any first round rematches). The final brackets would then be:

1. Alabama 2. Texas
16. West Virginia 15. BYU

8. Georgia Tech 7. Ohio St
9. Central Michigan 10. East Carolina

5. Boise St 6. Oregon
11. Troy 12. Florida

4. TCU 3. Cincinnati
13. Iowa 14. Virginia Tech


First 2 rounds will be at the higher seeds home field. National semi-finals would be held at 2 neutral sites (preferably one in the east and one in the west), with the championship game played at a different neutral site. (I wouldn't be opposed to playing the national semi-finals at the higher seeds place either to keep costs down).

The first playoff games would start the third week of December (this year 2 on the 17th, 2 on the 18th, 4 on the 19th), which is the same time bowl games start now. The next set of games would be the 4th week of December (2 on Friday, 2 on Saturday). The next set would be New Year's weekend (1 on Friday, 1 on Saturday). The championship game would be held the Friday (right before the NFL playoffs start on Saturday), or as the nightcap to wildcard Saturday.

With this schedule the games start 2 days before the bowl season scheduled this year and ends at the latest 2 days after the championship game.

Other exhibition (bowl) games could be scheduled during those off days during those normal two weeks. There would be some pretty interesting matchups available. I would suggest that the remaining top 25 teams be paired up as much as possible.

I would also let all teams (regardless of whether they are in the tournament or other exhibition games) be allowed to practice during that time in preparation for the next year.

I think this format answers all the questions about who gets in, keeps the conference season viable, would actually improve OOC matchups as they could enhance resumes if there is a stumble in conference (reason that Va. Tech is in over Clemson for example), puts a premium on head to head matchups (ie, had LSU beat Florida, but Florida ranked higher because that was their only loss outside of the SEC championship game, LSU gets in), and avoids rematches as much as possible. Plus it has the added benefit of keeping some additional exhibition games, and providing 15 additional practices for all teams, not just bowl teams (invaluable for teams changing coaches).

[mormonrasta]

There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.

Actually, there are 120 teams and I can't think of even one team so much as 5 teams that are DESERVING of an "at-large" bid to any postseason tournament that is serious about finding the #1 team in college football.

Why do any of the so called "at-large" teams that you selected deserve a chance to play in a playoff to be called the #1 team?

Wasn't it proven on the field that TCU, Alabama, and Ohio St were the best teams in their conferences? Why should BYU, Florida, and Iowa be in the same playoff as the same teams that proved on the field (in both the head to head and conference play) that they are better than those "at-large" teams?

[stuckinbig10country]

There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.

Actually, there are 120 teams and I can't think of even one team so much as 5 teams that are DESERVING of an "at-large" bid to any postseason tournament that is serious about finding the #1 team in college football.

Why do any of the so called "at-large" teams that you selected deserve a chance to play in a playoff to be called the #1 team?

Wasn't it proven on the field that TCU, Alabama, and Ohio St were the best teams in their conferences? Why should BYU, Florida, and Iowa be in the same playoff as the same teams that proved on the field (in both the head to head and conference play) that they are better than those "at-large" teams?

I'm so glad you don't run any sports league. If there were no "at-large" teams, then Arizona vs Pittsburg doesn't happen last year. If there were no "at-large" teams, then the Giants don't beat the Patriots. If there were no at-large teams, we don't get Dikembe Mutombo celebrating after beating the #1 seed in the NBA playoffs.

The best change in the format of any sports post-season in the last 15 years has been the addition of the wild-card (ie-at large team) in baseball. I am all for the NFL adding up to 4 more teams for the post-season. More games is better. In the end, you still have to be pretty darn good to be considered amongst the teams with a shot to win it all.

One of the reasons you only allow two teams in from each conference and keep them on opposite sides of the draw is to try and avoid a rematch of a championship or regular season game (which some championship games already have, ie Clemson and GT). For example, with my formula, if Alabama wins all of its games (which it would be favored to do on its home field), in order for them to meet Florida again, Florida would have to beat (if all higher seeds were to advance) Oregon @ Eugene, Cincinnati @ Cincy, and Texas @ Austin. If they can get through that, they darn sure would be the 2nd best team in the country, and maybe just didn't have a great game in the SEC title game and could be the best team.

[Lawboy]

Are you kidding me? Have you never watched the NCAA Hoops tourney? More often than not, a team wins that was not the conference champ. Plus, being a conference champ does not mean you were he best team in conference that year at times, and it also does not mean that you were better than other at-large teams. Thanks, but I'd take Florida over Boise State every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I would also take LSU over Georgia Tech. And I would take USC over Ohio State--just as the on field result showed. And USC is no BCS contender this year. Point being, it is better to be more inclusive than more exclusive with these matters, because upsets happen and it creates new paths and interesting games and match ups.

[GolfDiveNCougs]

Rasta, because when the BCS idiots went and decided that any 'ol 2 loss team can be thrown into their "championship" game, pretty much ANYBODY became "DESERVING," based on any sense of rightness, fairness or sportsmanship.

I know your arguments already. LSU did, after all, win their conference. Don't get me wrong. I'll defend the right for every conference champion to be included in a playoff as vociferously as you do. There I agree with you 100%. In absence of all other options, I wouldn't mind seeing an 11-team playoff. Don't LOVE the idea of byes for the top 5 seeds, but meh, this is your pipedream, not mine, and that's neglecting to broach the sticky topic that the BCS will NEVER give that much power to non- CONFERENCES by placing as many of them into a playoff as entitleds, REGARDLESS who looks or is actually better.

Back to LSU though. It was obvious that LSU was the better team that year than the rest of the 2- and 1- and 0-loss teams they leapfrogged, especially after the result of the Cartel Game. The BCS did go beyond their own "precident" by giving them the 2-loss pass, but, they were already a Royal, which usually means they were on par with lesser BCS teams with one fewer loss (and 2 or 3 fewer in the case of non-'s), couple that with the fact that there was only 1 other BCS team with only 1 loss, and they didn't even their division, much less won or were the best team in their conference (still, by some definitions, with as few losses as one of the title game teams, and FEWER than the other, just as "deserving" as anyone).

So what do you do in the event of an '07? Everybody and their CHICKEN had two losses, most of them looked to be better than the two 1-loss and one 0-loss teams. Some of them were conference champs, and some weren't. And that begs the question, how much more "deserving" is a 2-loss Oklahoma than a 1-loss Kansas, strictly from a win-loss perspective? I realize that's just how the conferences are set up, and if a team feels it will be slighted by the way their conference champion is decided, they should attempt to fix it in-house, or leave the conference. No argument from me there either. Still, in my opinion, when you're talking 2- and 3- loss teams, inclusion based on a conference championship becomes cheaper, just because that champion has been put in the back seat enough times to put their "worthiness" into some question ANYWAY.

Further, you stated that it would be injust for Florida to get another shot at Alabama, seeing as that game was decided once already. Well, that happens all the TIME in conferences. '07 was a good example in VTech and BC. Why did VTech get the BCS spot with the win over BC, when VTech lost to them in the regular season? Wouldn't a tournament rubbermatch in fact be MORE fair, assuming one got an at-large? This is all splitting hairs, but it's easy to argue it both ways.

You dislike at-large bids. They give a "free pass" to teams that didn't win their conference. Got that. Thing is, this is really just a conceptual argument on what the words "deserving" or "worthy" mean. Last year, Texas, with wins against BOTH teams that they sat home watching play in their conference championship, and the exact same record as the other two best teams in its division, was a LOT more "worthy" of a playoff inclusion than, say, a 5-loss Buffalo, or even 4-loss BCS VTech.

I get it. You place enough worth on a conference championship that the idea of giving a team, no matter how good they actually are, a SHOT when they lost a nail-biter to a team with a worse record than theirs in a conference championship, is more palatable than giving five 1- or 2- or 3-loss teams a(n other?) SHOT against eleven conference champions. That's your choice. Most people disagree with you. Happy for everyone. Neither is gonna happen any time soon.

[mormonrasta]

Rasta, because when the BCS idiots went and decided that any 'ol 2 loss team can be thrown into their "championship" game, pretty much ANYBODY became "DESERVING," based on any sense of rightness, fairness or sportsmanship.

I know your arguments already. LSU did, after all, win their conference. Don't get me wrong. I'll defend the right for every conference champion to be included in a playoff as vociferously as you do.

You clearly do not understand my arguments because I am NOT in favor of every conference champion to be included in a playoff. My proposal includes an actual playoff of 4 teams.

[mormonrasta]

There are 119 teams in the country, and out of that you don't think we could come up with 5 deserving teams to be selected? Really? I think that every year there would be more than 5 teams that have an arguement. One thing that a playoff would guarantee is that all 119 teams would have a chance at the beginning of the year.

Actually, there are 120 teams and I can't think of even one team so much as 5 teams that are DESERVING of an "at-large" bid to any postseason tournament that is serious about finding the #1 team in college football.

Why do any of the so called "at-large" teams that you selected deserve a chance to play in a playoff to be called the #1 team?

Wasn't it proven on the field that TCU, Alabama, and Ohio St were the best teams in their conferences? Why should BYU, Florida, and Iowa be in the same playoff as the same teams that proved on the field (in both the head to head and conference play) that they are better than those "at-large" teams?

I'm so glad you don't run any sports league. If there were no "at-large" teams, then Arizona vs Pittsburg doesn't happen last year. If there were no "at-large" teams, then the Giants don't beat the Patriots. If there were no at-large teams, we don't get Dikembe Mutombo celebrating after beating the #1 seed in the NBA playoffs.

The best change in the format of any sports post-season in the last 15 years has been the addition of the wild-card (ie-at large team) in baseball. I am all for the NFL adding up to 4 more teams for the post-season. More games is better. In the end, you still have to be pretty darn good to be considered amongst the teams with a shot to win it all.

One of the reasons you only allow two teams in from each conference and keep them on opposite sides of the draw is to try and avoid a rematch of a championship or regular season game (which some championship games already have, ie Clemson and GT). For example, with my formula, if Alabama wins all of its games (which it would be favored to do on its home field), in order for them to meet Florida again, Florida would have to beat (if all higher seeds were to advance) Oregon @ Eugene, Cincinnati @ Cincy, and Texas @ Austin. If they can get through that, they darn sure would be the 2nd best team in the country, and maybe just didn't have a great game in the SEC title game and could be the best team.

My proposal would add 60 games to the schedule and had it been implemented this year it would have featured matchups such as TCU-BSU, Oregon-TCU, Alabama-Georgia Tech, Texas-Cincy all BEFORE the playoffs begin. How awesome would that be?

You can have entertainment and integrity in the regular season.

[CougarPeasant]

How about instead of a yearly champion, we have a decade champion. With 120 teams, each team can play every other team over a 10 year stretch. There would be no conferences and no rivalries, just a new slate of opponents each season with no repeats over 10 years. At the end of the 10 years, the team with the best record is the champion. In the event of a tie, head to head is the first breaker, then best record against all teams tied, then against the teams that finished "next."

There, a solution that has integrity and includes all teams. It's the ultimate round robin.

[GolfDiveNCougs]

CP, if that's a joke, I think it's hilarious! If not, I WISH I WISH I WISH it could happen!!!