Sign in to follow this  
godtomsatan

Too bad he doesn't weild any power

Recommended Posts

...over the Conference Commissioners.

 

With the overall bowl TV ratings mostly underwhelming, it really is starting to feel for the first time that some kind of a playoff arrangement is going to be in place within the next couple of years. The liberal pinko in me always says follow-the-money in college football to explain how messed up it is, and with all the money tied up in the bowl games via sponsorships, conference payout guarantees, and ESPN, I've always had my suspicions as far as whether a bowl system would ever really be replaced outside of a giant overhaul of the BCS. Now, I kind of feel like it's inevitable.

 

Frankly, I'm pretty sure the other power conference are just sick of the SEC winning every year. Not even joking about that one.

 

You don't think those guys were all watching that abortion Monday night wondering what West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon, or Wisconsin would have done against either of those teams? Not saying Alabama wouldn't have done the exact same thing to any and all of them, but it would have been way more interesting to see someone try. I think they finally all see that.

 

I'd bet a plus-one type thing happens slotting two winners of two different BCS bowl game to start with. Allow a rotating championship game, and perhaps a return to a little more traditional bowl alignment, rather than slotting by BCS rank. Keeps the bowl system in place and allows for giving the people what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote below is one reason why I was so tickled to have two SEC teams in the NC this year... The other conferences made their own bed and got to lay in it. Now all of a sudden they're having a change of heart.

 

One possibility is the four-team playoff, or the so-called plus-one approach, that would create two national semifinals and a championship game played one week later. The original proposal, made in 2008 by the commissioners of the Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast Conference, was emphatically shot down by the leaders of the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12 and Notre Dame.

 

My next question would be; do you simply take the BCS top 4 and do the playoff OR do you take the top 4 conference champs in the BCS ranking? For example, this year the top 4 in the playoff would have been LSU v. Stanford and Bama v. OSU and then the winners advance. This would have excluded the PAC 12 champ, the Big 10 champ and the ACC champ, among others. So, how should it be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The quote below is one reason why I was so tickled to have two SEC teams in the NC this year... The other conferences made their own bed and got to lay in it. Now all of a sudden they're having a change of heart.

 

 

 

My next question would be; do you simply take the BCS top 4 and do the playoff OR do you take the top 4 conference champs in the BCS ranking? For example, this year the top 4 in the playoff would have been LSU v. Stanford and Bama v. OSU and then the winners advance. This would have excluded the PAC 12 champ, the Big 10 champ and the ACC champ, among others. So, how should it be done?

Assuming that we're just going to a +1 situation, then I believe they should just take the top 4 teams in the BCS rankings. I also believe that, in order to qualify for the final four, that you should have to have played at least one(perhaps 2?) OOC game against some team ranked in the top 25 in at least one of the last couple years. However long the time frame needs to be based on how far ahead of time OOC match-ups are set. You've got 4 OOC games, so that still leaves at least 2 games against whatever cupcake you want to bring in.

 

Obviously that's a system that could be somewhat exploited because everyone would be trying to schedule the fluky team that happened to sneak in but is bound to fall back out. But only so many teams can do that and it would, inevitably lead to better OOC match-ups (because there's just as much chance that marginal top 25 program you scheduled turns out to be a team on the rise and is top 10 the year you finally play them) which would, in turn, lead to an easier time in determining who is good on a national stage. Essentially, it would mean more match-ups between the power conferences during the regular season and a better chance to actually determine where they stack up relative to one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My next question would be; do you simply take the BCS top 4 and do the playoff OR do you take the top 4 conference champs in the BCS ranking? For example, this year the top 4 in the playoff would have been LSU v. Stanford and Bama v. OSU and then the winners advance. This would have excluded the PAC 12 champ, the Big 10 champ and the ACC champ, among others. So, how should it be done?

 

If you take the top 4 conference champs according to BCS standings, then you'd end up with LSU vs. Boise St. and Okie St. vs. Oregon. You happy with that? You cut out Boise St. and you get Wisconsin. You happier with that?

 

Here's my rationale: there are already 13-games with the conference championships, they aren't going to let them play more than 15 (what FCS schools play who make it to the finals) or maybe 16. So, that allows for three extra games (potentially), which means an 8 team playoff. How about four regional sites that rotate every year with the six conference champs (use a BCS-style system to determine the top 6 conferences) and two at-large?

 

Essentially, this year you'd have the following scenario:

 

December 15th & 16th:

#1 LSU vs. #23 West Virginia

#2 Alabama vs. #11 Virginia Tech

#3 Oklahoma State vs. #5 Oregon

#4 Stanford vs. #10 Wisconsin (switching around Oregon and Wisconsin so conference foes don't meet before finals)

 

Regional sites could be NFL stadiums in warmer climates or domes and rotate on an annual basis like the NCAA BBall tourneys do, so planning can be done years in advance to ease the logistics of traveling parties and such. The NFL can modify it's Saturday schedule so there's a Friday Night prime time game, and three games on the Saturday for the first weekend.

 

Teams that lose in the first round are still eligible for a new years bowl game invite. Teams that win go on to a semi-final the day or two after new years (for prime time mid-week purposes) and a final in mid-January sometime during the week.

 

The weekly elimination style regular season stays relatively in tact, the bowl system stays relatively intact, the conferences get their dough, it doesn't conflict with NFL scheduling, and Boise St. still gets shut out. The perfect system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished reading this.

 

It's a quick read, it's full of number$ to back up the assertion that there's probably (at least) $600-700 mil sitting on the table for the FBS member institutions to ditch the current post-season format for a 16-team tourney. The plan they present is so simplistic and sensible, you should go burn down ESPN just to help make the point. Keeps the regular season important. Keeps the conference championship games intact. Keeps the bowl system for the most part, minus some minnow games that are there for programming purposes anyway. It even keeps a break in December so the players can study for finals. It's basically the FCS system, only way more lucrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.