Yecke, did I ever say in my first comment that I had a workable playoff system? Nope. There are two reasons for this. 1) I've heard many different opinions on how to implement one, but I can't say that any one of them is better than the next; 2) ANY of those opinions are BETTER than what is currently in place. That doesn't mean that every opinion I've heard is a good one, it just means that the BCS is THAT BAD OF ONE!!!!
I am not in favor of subtracting any regular season games. We are in agreement that the rivals are what drives college football. (See my earlier comments regarding UF.) So therefore games must be added. Obviously we cannot create a viable "March Madness" of CF. But there must be a way where a championship is earned by defeating other seeded opponents from other regions of the country. There must also be the opportunity for a team to upset a higher ranked team. Right now, TCU, Cincinnatti, and Boise State SHOULD be pissed, because all 3 of them should have a chance to knock off Florida, Texas, and Alabama - but they won't. You and I both know that Texas will play either UF or UA for the championship because a computer decrees it.
The argument that Boise, TCU, and Cincy should have scheduled tougher opponents doesn't hold water. I know you haven't made that statement...yet?...but that's a common misconception. CF scheduling is so screwed up, because nobody knows who is going to be good 5 years down the road. In addition to that, The big boy teams aren't going to schedule teams like Boise because of the conferences they play in. Why on earth SHOULD any SEC team schedule a game against a potential "bracket buster" when they already have the toughest schedule in the country?!?! They're already paying their dues in their own conference. It's the same reason USC (Southern Cal) has to play Notre Dame, Ohio State, and other big time schools - because they can't prove themselves just by beating up on PAC 10 teams...which they can't even do that this year.
Here is the biggest flaw about the BCS. It's not in the least bit about crowning a championship. It's all about $$. All the bowls "around which the fans can rally" to use your words, will continue to pay unheard of amounts to keep it the way it is - because they're afraid of their bowl meaning less than it already does. Why is it that only 4 bowls can hold the title game? $$$. But what about all the other bowls? Are people really "rallying" around the Carquest Bowl...AutoZone Bowl...Brut Bowl...MAACO Bowl...Roady's Truck Stops Bowl...Emerald Nuts Bowl...We Actually Sucked But We Had A .500 Winning Record So We Got Invited To The "We Suck" Bowl...(all except the last are actual bowl games.) The vast majority of the bowls are nothing more than advertisements in the form of a football game. I would bet good money that the insignificant bowls would lose no more money if we moved to a playoff system than they currently make now...if they are even turning a profit.
The BCS is also CASH COW for the NCAA, which I'm sure you are aware, many in education consider to be one of the most corrupt non-profit organizations out there.
Another flaw in the BCS. Last season, Florida played Oklahoma on January 8. Prior to that game, Florida's last game was on December 6. (That's one month and two days in between games for those of you keeping score at home.) Oklahoma's last game ALSO took place on December 6. Seriously, are all of the Insignificant Bowls so important that fans and the actual teams PICKED to play for the championship have to wait more than a month to play one final game? Could we maybe use those 4 weeks in between to work on letting the teams themselves determine who should play for the title? I say yes.
You noted the potential for "career threatening" injuries. I would submit that the risk for injury is greater with a month off in between games and coming in cold, vs. staying in the competitive grind. Plus, who's to say that the top teams couldn't have some sort of "first round bye" in a tournament play system in order for some knicked up players to rest? While we are talking about careers, the teams that currently play for the BCS Championship play a maximum of 14 games. Subtract 1 for teams that don't have to play a conference championship. If a player goes into the NFL and his team makes it to the Super Bowl - you're talking about potentially going from a 14 game CF schedule to a 20 game NFL schedule if a WIld Card game is played.
So here is one suggestion that I think is worth a conversation (I'M ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHT NOW THAT THERE ARE FLAWS): First require all Football Bowl Subdivision conferences to hold a conference championship game, so that all conf. champions end with 14 game schedules. Then begin bracket play. As pictured below, out of the 12 conferences, award a first round bye to the 4 conference champions with the best overall records. Proceed from there. At the most, the title-winning team plays 17 or 18 games.
Flaws with this suggestion:
- The Independents - there are 3 teams not affiliated with a conference, Notre Dame, Army, Navy. Either create new conference with those 3 and additional schools, or absorb those 3 teams into current conferences and go with 11 conferences. Either way, big mess created.
- Season length - potentially longer than NFL; at the same time - helps more more players get acclimated to a longer season
- Needs to ensure motivation of schools to schedule tough out-of-conference opponents - How about this: Suppose UGA and UF tie for the lead in the SEC East to go to the conf. title game. Take the total number of wins of their opponents, not including each other, team with higher of opponent victories goes to conf. title game?
Opportunities:
- 11 games for Bowls to be included in National Title Tournament
- All of the other Insignificant Bowls can invite who ever they want and keep their conference allegiances.
- NO COMPUTERS, NO POLLS. Just wins and losses.
OK, that's enough for now. Discuss.
