Quote :

"you guys are presenting these scenarios as if the rose bowl wants to become a first round playoff game. it doesn't. neither does the sugar bowl, or the fiesta bowl or the orange bowl."

In my example I didn't lay that all out explicitly. I was trying to think of a scenario where the bowls don't end up like that. My initial thought was this. It certainly has its flaws abut here me out: The only playoff game that is a bowl game is the championship game.

1. 3v6 and 4v5 games either played the weekend following the Conf Champ games or with 1 week break after Conf. Champ games.

2. Semis played the weekend following that round.

After these games are used to determine the championship game, proceed with bowls as usual.

As far as selecting the full round of bowl games under this kind of system, I see them as having two options.

1. Wait until the semis are completed, at this point you know who the championship game is between. Divy out the other 4 teams from the playoffs into the four remaining BCS bowls and fill the slots with other teams based on conference champs not in the top 6 etc.

2. Once the first round is done and you are down to the semis, do the bowl selection leaving two open BCS slots for the semi-final losers to slip into. So you would have two bowl games with only 1 opponent, waiting for one of the semi losers. After the semis are done, those 2 losers get placed with the best matchup available when looking at the two BCS games that have a slot(ie attempting to avoid a same-season rematch). This would allow the bowl selection to possibly only be 1 week later than it is now.


Besides adding two weeks to the end of the regular season there is hardly anything different. You have ALL the same bowl games, rake in ALL the same money, and in front of that you have 2 extra weekends of GOOD football that will also make money. There is still 1 rotatable bowl game to decide the championship, the other BCS games with good football but not playing for the championship. Conference championships still mean something. Teams from non-BCS conferences have a chance to make the playoffs and also still have a chance to make a BCS bowl game. Who loses here? I just don't see a loser in that scenario.

--------------------------

With this year, if the playoffs went exactly by seed:

1 Alabama vs 2 Texas : Championship game

BCS bowl games are left with:

3 Cincinatti vs
4 TCU vs
5 Florida vs
6 Boise State vs

Big 12 Champion Represented: Check
ACC Champ Represented: No. Placed into BCS Bowl Game.
Big East Champ Represented: Check
Big Ten Champ Represented: No. Place into BCS Bowl Game.
Pac 10 Champ Represented: No. Place into BCS Bowl Game.
SEC Champ represented: Check.

Last BCS Bowl game slot chosen by highest BCS ranked team not already in a BCS bowl game: Iowa.

[Edited on December 11, 2009 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2009 4:00:27 PM

ugh, 30 mins, but:

Magically those are the exact same 10 teams playing each other in BCS bowl games right now! And that works out regardless of what seeds advance to the championship game.

12/11/2009 4:35:30 PM

Quote :

"On top of that, it leaves the regular season being very important; as important as it is now (if not MORE SO imo). When you are only taking the top 6, any single loss for the top teams could still bump someone out of that top 6. Look at GTech. #7 in the nation with 1 game + conference championship to play. If they beat Georgia, they might be in the top 6 this year, instead of #9. Explain to me how that game they lost would not be MORE important in a 6 team playoff system? Now, how important is/was that game? Not much at all. Even if they won it, they had no chance to play for the national championship. In the new system, it could have been the 1 factor to keep them out. Same with Oregon v Stanford etc. Tell me how these games wouldn't mean more under a playoff system like this as opposed to now?"

Who says it's going to be a six team playoff? Most want 8 or 16, in which case GT would still be in OR be bitching about how they aren't in. And if we take conference champs like some are suggesting, then they're STILL in, and CLEMSON had a chance to be in... And even so, I'm not talking about fringe teams trying to make the playoffs. I'm talking about every team trying to make the Nat'l Title bowl game. Every team HAS to win every game. This is undeniably a freakish year with so many undefeateds.

12/11/2009 4:46:02 PM

I say its a 6 team playoff...I was presenting a specific scenario to you...

You said "A Playoff will not work." Period in your first statement in this thread. I presented a playoff scenario I feel WOULD work. You can't argue against my scenario by using completely different playoff scenarios.

12/11/2009 4:48:04 PM

A six team playoff would work this year. This is not a normal year. You are still leaving it up to voters/computers if you're going top six, which people will always hate.

12/11/2009 5:09:45 PM

I understand that. I am trying to find a compromise situation that still involves both playoffs and bowl games. I feel that it is pretty reasonable that, even with the fault in BCS picking the best two teams to play for the NC game, the best team is probably somewhere in the top 6. Maybe not though, who knows.

It would have worked great last year too as the bowl games worked out pretty well to prove the top 6 was better than the teams ranked 7-10. The year before it was a little fuzzier with teams like Kansas (8) beating VT(3). But I still don't think Kansas was NC material that year so /shrug.

[Edited on December 11, 2009 at 5:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2009 5:25:37 PM

I just feel like bowls become the NIT in a world with playoffs. And I like bowls. College football is unique. I don't want it to be college basketball.

12/11/2009 5:26:55 PM

Unless NCSU is there who the fuck watched the Minecke Car Care bowl or the chick-fil-A bowl. You keep mentioning that it "waters down" the season but i find this to be untrue unless you are texas, alabama, or one of the other select few schools who the AP coach's polls seems to pick every year.

If anything the current system waters down the regular season. Who gives a fuck about playing hard, you got your 6 Wins, yay you are bowl elidgeable now!

12/11/2009 5:51:55 PM

Quote :

"Who gives a fuck about playing hard, you got your 6 Wins, yay you are bowl elidgeable now!"

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!

And I don't know about you people but I'm definitely going to watch Car Care and Chick-Fil-A..

[Edited on December 11, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2009 5:52:58 PM

^^^I suppose. Did you look at my scenario above with playoffs? It landed the exact same 10 teams into BCS Bowl Games that the current system did this year.

2008-2009? The exact same 10 teams.

2007-2008? 9/10 are the exact same. The only one that is different is Missouri (6) making a BCS game over Illinois (13) which would they probably deserved anyways. Missouri won in a blowout and Illinois lost in a blowout.

2006-2007? 9/10 teams are the exact same. The only team left out? Notre Dame who got smashed 41-14 by LSU in their BCS bowl game that year anyways.

I don't see how my scenario would make the bowl games like the NIT. My scenario pretty much puts the exact same teams in the BCS Bowl Games, doesnt affect the teams that wouldnt be in a BCS bowl game, and only adds 2 extra weeks to the season to allow any team in the top 6 a shot at the championship game. Two weeks with awesome matchups.

If you can explain how having the same 10 teams in the BCS bowl games that were already in the BCS bowl games for the last 4+(I say plus because I didnt check back farther than that) years would have been much different for your love of the bowls, I'd like to hear it as I am confused.

[Edited on December 11, 2009 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2009 5:58:04 PM