Should BCS Be Replaced By Playoffs? -- Guynemer's Proposal

[DanS]

This would be a twelve-team playoff. Take all eleven conference champs--even the Sun Belt champs. Hey, if you're Div I-A, you deserve a shot, period. Then, for team #12, take all the teams with at least nine wins. Whichever team has the most wins against the conference champs and the other nine-win teams gets the "wild card" slot (ND would be a lock this year). If there is a tie, go down to most wins against eight-win teams, and so on. (Obviously, only wins against other Div I-A teams would count.)

Seed 'em based on the polls. #1-4 get a first round bye. The finals, semis, and the quarterfinal with the #1 team would rotate among the four BCS bowls; the other seven games among the next seven best bowls (ie, Citrus, Gator, Outback, Cotton, etc).

No one gets to complain about selection process or anything. If you're not in the tournament, tough noogies--you shoulda won your conference, or you shoulda performed against the cream of the crop.

Most teams would play 14 or 15 games, which some teams will do this year anyway. 16 max.

A gold star to the person who points out a flaw in my perfect plan. Or, perhaps, a plague of locusts. I'll figure that out later.

The most damning criticism against this proposal is that nobody who matters would agree to it.

Of course, I can be a wiseguy on the subject, since I don't think a playoff would quell the controversy and the bellyaching. Quite the contrary.

[SlowwHand]

Not just yes, but HELL yes.

[Guynemer]

Good lord, Slowwhand agrees with me.

Something is very, very wrong here. Must be Halloween season.

[DanS]

Spooky.

[Guynemer]

Re: Should BCS Be Replaced By Playoffs? -- Guynemer's Proposal

Originally posted by DanS
Of course, I can be a wiseguy on the subject, since I don't think a playoff would quell the controversy and the bellyaching. Quite the contrary.

Out of curiosity, why do you think controversy and bellyaching would worsen under this utopian ideal? Outside of the fact that the national championship would be open to 117 teams, instead of a pre-determined list of 15 or so...

[SlowwHand]

I slipped. Usually, if I agree with you I take great pains to not let you know.

[DanS]

Guynemer: It wouldn't decrease the controversy because it wouldn't adequately take into account the quality of teams playing in the various conferences. The basketball tournament can get away with it because proportionally there would be fewer automatic bids.

If you are guided by strength of schedule, then you get into unavoidable facts that nobody likes, such as Notre Dame's schedule makes them more deserving of a shot at the title, even though they might lose one or two, and that introducing Cinderella teams into the mix necessarily robs deserving teams from those spots.

[SlowwHand]

No, what happens is a "Power House" schedules Miami, Ohio-like for their non-conference games, go undefeated, and the ignorant coaches and/or writers look at undefeated as an earned undefeated.

[Adam Smith]

This sounds like a good proposal. Need to cut back the number of regular season games back to 11 period. And no conference championship games.

Only problem I see is that you will probably get a profusion of chicken sh!t football conferences in order to get an automatic bid, which is what happened in the basketball tournament.

edit: Another issue is that the conferences need to be small enough that everybody plays everybody else. For example, Iowa might win the Big 10 this year without ever playing Ohio State. If that shuts Ohio State out of the national championship, then they have a legitimate beef.

[SlowwHand]

Strengh of schedule.

[DanS]

I fully expect that there will be something like 80-90% for the replacement.

[JohnT]

If it weren't for the fact that 1-AA already plays a 4 game tournament, I'd put the 1-AA champ in the #12 spot.

[Drake Tungsten]

No. Playoffs would ruin college football and I hope that they are never instituted. The great thing about college football is that every game of the regular season matters. If you instituted a playoff system, college football's regular season would be as unimportant as the NFL's...

[JohnT]

But that argument can be used against playoffs in general: baseball, hockey, division 3 football, etc. And why does it render the regular season meaningless - you still have to win to enter the playoffs!

[Drake Tungsten]

And why does it render the regular season meaningless - you still have to win to enter the playoffs!

Well obviously you have to win enough games to get into the playoffs. However, that isn't anything like the current situation in college football, where a single loss may be enough to keep you out of the national title game. Every game matters is college football; a playoff would destroy this.

But that argument can be used against playoffs in general: baseball, hockey, division 3 football, etc.

Yes it can. I don't like playoffs in general, although some sports do it better than others. The playoffs in baseball are infinitely better than the NBA playoffs, for example.