I love the NCAA basketball tournament, but I really don't feel a one-and-done tourney produces the best overall team at the end. That being said, lets take a look at this year's NCAA basketball final 4, with their RPI ranking:

6 - Kentucky
14- UCONN
34 - Butler
48- VCU

Let's flip to college football. Imagine a similar playoff format (again, I know this is unrealistic, so keep your venom to a minimum): looking at the final standings, imagine a final 4 in college football of (using the AP poll, which includes votes past the top 25, unlike the final BCS standings):

6- Oklahoma
14- Michigan State
34 - UCONN
48 - Eastern Washington (they were actually 40th, but they were the last team on the list)

Kindof puts in perspective how whacky this NCAA tourney was.

There are nearly three times as many D-1 schools playing basketball as there are those playing football (346 basketball schools, 120 football schools). So, I took the RPI ranking for the four teams in the basketball Final Four and normalized them for football by dividing them by three. They do produce RPI ranking for football, so I was going to used them, but I could only find RPI at the end of the bowl season, and not before. I decided to just use the final BCS poll instead. After normalizing the numbers I came up with:

2 - Oregon
5 - Wisconsin
11 - LSU
16 - Alabama

Now, if we were to continue this comparison and extrapolate this out, a 68 team tournament field in college basketball is equal to 19.7% of all schools playing basketball being in the field. For football, that would be the equivalent of a 24 team playoff. Here is what the bracket would have looked like this year.



I did the bracket based strictly on final BCS rankings. I did not include all conference champions as automatic qualifiers, even though they would be if there actually were a 24 team playoff. If this were the actual system in college football then the opening round would have been the weekend after the final weekend of the college football season and would have run until the same time as the actual BCS title game (meaning those teams playing in the first round would have had to play straight through finals and Christmas break.

krambman;728821 wrote:There are nearly three times as many D-1 schools playing basketball as there are those playing football (346 basketball schools, 120 football schools). So, I took the RPI ranking for the four teams in the basketball Final Four and normalized them for football by dividing them by three. They do produce RPI ranking for football, so I was going to used them, but I could only find RPI at the end of the bowl season, and not before. I decided to just use the final BCS poll instead. After normalizing the numbers I came up with:

2 - Oregon
5 - Wisconsin
11 - LSU
16 - Alabama

Now, if we were to continue this comparison and extrapolate this out, a 68 team tournament field in college basketball is equal to 19.7% of all schools playing basketball being in the field. For football, that would be the equivalent of a 24 team playoff. Here is what the bracket would have looked like this year.



I did the bracket based strictly on final BCS rankings. I did not include all conference champions as automatic qualifiers, even though they would be if there actually were a 24 team playoff. If this were the actual system in college football then the opening round would have been the weekend after the final weekend of the college football season and would have run until the same time as the actual BCS title game (meaning those teams playing in the first round would have had to play straight through finals and Christmas break.

I can see you put a lot of time into this, and I think it looks / sounds good.

I do, however, agree with Colin Cowherd in that no one wants to see an OSU vs. East Carolina matchup in football, or a Florida vs. University of Toledo. So, the whole "we need to go crazy and copy a bracket-like tournament for college football" is a farcry.

The current BCS structure is not that bad; in fact, it's actually pretty damn good. I would be willing to hear a "Plus-1" system or, perhaps I'll even go crazy and say, an 8-Team playoff, but anything more than that is simply too ridiculous.

Why mess with a well-oiled machine? The current college football setup makes EVERY week of football THAT much more important/crazy/chaotic/etc. Just win, baby.

Scarlet_Buckeye;728912 wrote:I can see you put a lot of time into this, and I think it looks / sounds good.

I do, however, agree with Colin Cowherd in that no one wants to see an OSU vs. East Carolina matchup in football, or a Florida vs. University of Toledo. So, the whole "we need to go crazy and copy a bracket-like tournament for college football" is a farcry.

The current BCS structure is not that bad; in fact, it's actually pretty damn good. I would be willing to hear a "Plus-1" system or, perhaps I'll even go crazy and say, an 8-Team playoff, but anything more than that is simply too ridiculous.

Why mess with a well-oiled machine? The current college football setup makes EVERY week of football THAT much more important/crazy/chaotic/etc. Just win, baby.

I guess that I should mention that I'm actually a fan of the BCS and am opposed to a playoff in college football (I think a four or six team format would be fine, eight is as large as I'd be willing to go, but if we have one it will only continue to grow). A playoff format is about finding a champion. The BCS is about finding a champion out of the best team. Let's be honest, VCU has a legitimate shot at being the champion in college basketball this year, but they are far from being the best team. In college football, nine times out of ten, your champion is your best team.

The only reason I did this is because you can't really do a one-to-one comparison like BAB did because there are so many more college basketball teams. I just wanted to put the numbers into perspective and see what it would have looked like this year if college football had a playoff that was modeled exactly after college basketball's playoff.

krambman;728971 wrote:I guess that I should mention that I'm actually a fan of the BCS and am opposed to a playoff in college football (I think a four or six team format would be fine, eight is as large as I'd be willing to go, but if we have one it will only continue to grow). A playoff format is about finding a champion. The BCS is about finding a champion out of the best team. Let's be honest, VCU has a legitimate shot at being the champion in college basketball this year, but they are far from being the best team. In college football, nine times out of ten, your champion is your best team.

The only reason I did this is because you can't really do a one-to-one comparison like BAB did because there are so many more college basketball teams. I just wanted to put the numbers into perspective and see what it would have looked like this year if college football had a playoff that was modeled exactly after college basketball's playoff.

Well said, and well done krambman. I agree with you and Scarlet -- every week in college football is a playoff game, why mess with something so perfect? If OSU loses in hoops during the regular season, I am over it by dinner time. If OSU loses in football during the regular season, I pout and rant for several weeks ... and I wouldn't change a thing haha

BigAppleBuckeye;729040 wrote:Well said, and well done krambman. I agree with you and Scarlet -- every week in college football is a playoff game, why mess with something so perfect? If OSU loses in hoops during the regular season, I am over it by dinner time. If OSU loses in football during the regular season, I pout and rant for several weeks ... and I wouldn't change a thing haha

It's not a playoff. Otherwise teams that lose would stop playing.

I really get sick of hearing that argument. Nowhere in a true playoff do two teams vying for a championship NOT play eachother, but must hope and pray that some 2-8 school plays world-beater and knocks out #1 or #2 to give their team a chance. In a true playoff, everybody has an opportunity to prove themselves.

All conference champions make it (regardless of what you think of the postseason tournaments, each individual conference has voted that that is how they want to name their champion). They all then get in. If they win, they move on. If they lose, they lose.

As for OSU-ECU in football, who really wants to see OSU-ECU in basketball, for instance?

But nobody questions when Coppin State plays a big name, etc in basketball. If ECU earned it, regardless of their 'lack of being a big name', they deserve it.

I still say the best tournament for football is the 11 conference champions, top five at-large. All slots seeded by a power-rating (no favoritism to conference champions, etc). Homefield throughout except for the final.

krambman;728971 wrote:I guess that I should mention that I'm actually a fan of the BCS and am opposed to a playoff in college football (I think a four or six team format would be fine, eight is as large as I'd be willing to go, but if we have one it will only continue to grow). A playoff format is about finding a champion. The BCS is about finding a champion out of the best team. Let's be honest, VCU has a legitimate shot at being the champion in college basketball this year, but they are far from being the best team. In college football, nine times out of ten, your champion is your best team .

The only reason I did this is because you can't really do a one-to-one comparison like BAB did because there are so many more college basketball teams. I just wanted to put the numbers into perspective and see what it would have looked like this year if college football had a playoff that was modeled exactly after college basketball's playoff.

Couldn't disagree more.

Sykotyk;729219 wrote:It's not a playoff. Otherwise teams that lose would stop playing.

I really get sick of hearing that argument. Nowhere in a true playoff do two teams vying for a championship NOT play eachother, but must hope and pray that some 2-8 school plays world-beater and knocks out #1 or #2 to give their team a chance. In a true playoff, everybody has an opportunity to prove themselves.

All conference champions make it (regardless of what you think of the postseason tournaments, each individual conference has voted that that is how they want to name their champion). They all then get in. If they win, they move on. If they lose, they lose.

As for OSU-ECU in football, who really wants to see OSU-ECU in basketball, for instance?

But nobody questions when Coppin State plays a big name, etc in basketball. If ECU earned it, regardless of their 'lack of being a big name', they deserve it.

I still say the best tournament for football is the 11 conference champions, top five at-large. All slots seeded by a power-rating (no favoritism to conference champions, etc). Homefield throughout except for the final.

This and krambman's OP are VERY intriguing.

trep14;729287 wrote:Couldn't disagree more.

Here are the BCS champions for the past 10 years.

2001 - Miami (FL)
2002 - Ohio State
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - Florida
2007 - LSU
2008 - Florida
2009 - Alabama
2010 - Aurburn

Now, tell me who on that list wasn't the best team in college football the year they won the title. And when I say the best, I mean the best from beginning to end, not the best at the end of the season (many years people argue that a team like USC who suffered an early loss or two finishes the season playing as well or better than anyone else). I'm not talking about those teams, I'm talking about the best team from game one all the way through game 13/14.

On this list you could make an argument that Miami was the best in 2002, but both Miami and OSU were undefeated and OSU beat them.

In 2003 USC was ranked #1 in both human polls going into the bowl games and was voted #1 in the AP after the bowls. The BCS changed their formula after this season though, and had they been using the current formula they use now USC would have been in the title game. This is the only year you can legitimately say that the best team didn't necessarily win.

In 2004 USC won but that bowl win has been vacated, though they have yet to be stripped of the national championship for that year. Yes, Auburn was also undefeated that year, but USC was so dominant from beginning to end that few could reasonably argue that they were better than the USC team that was in the field that year.

In 2006 Ohio State was the best from beginning to end and they laid an egg of epic proportions against Florida.

In 2007 there was no "beat team."


As far as I see it, there are really only two champions in the last ten years (2003 and 2006) that the best team from beginning to end didn't win the championship in college football. Again, a playoff is about getting a champion, not about finding the best team. The BCS is also about getting a champion, but making the best team the champion.

BigAppleBuckeye;729040 wrote:If OSU loses in hoops during the regular season, I am over it by dinner time. If OSU loses in football during the regular season, I pout and rant for several weeks ... and I wouldn't change a thing haha

This!

Sykotyk;729219 wrote:I still say the best tournament for football is the 11 conference champions, top five at-large. All slots seeded by a power-rating (no favoritism to conference champions, etc). Homefield throughout except for the final.

This has been my exact position on the matter for years.

If 1AA can have a 20 team bracket, then why does everyone only want an 4, 6, or 8 team playoff in 1A?

brutus161;729765 wrote:This has been my exact position on the matter for years.

If 1AA can have a 20 team bracket, then why does everyone only want an 4, 6, or 8 team playoff in 1A?

They only play 11 games in 1-AA and don't have conference championship games, so they have two extra weeks for playoffs. In 1-AA they play 15 games at most, in 1-A they play 14 at most. As the system stands now there's almost no difference between the number of games played. You can't cut out a game from the regular season or do away with championship games because they make too much money, so a 16 team playoff means the potential for 18 games, and a 20 or 24 team playoff means up to 19 games for two teams, with potentially only one bye week from the beginning of September through early January.

krambman;729884 wrote:They only play 11 games in 1-AA and don't have conference championship games, so they have two extra weeks for playoffs. In 1-AA they play 15 games at most, in 1-A they play 14 at most. As the system stands now there's almost no difference between the number of games played. You can't cut out a game from the regular season or do away with championship games because they make too much money, so a 16 team playoff means the potential for 18 games, and a 20 or 24 team playoff means up to 19 games for two teams, with potentially only one bye week from the beginning of September through early January.

8 team playoff would result in a max 15 game schedule, with a conference champion. It can be done easily. The money excuse is bullshit. It can be done and make money too.

^^^

I think that's krambman's point. 8 team would be alright, but if we tried to do what I-AA does, it would be like the pro game (18-19 games). These guys are still students, and I have a problem with that much time devoted to the game and not school. An 8 team playoff would take up more time but not as much as a 16-24 team playoff. His point was that we couldn't do that because the number of games would be so great that we'd have to take a game away some where, whereas an 8 wouldn't.

Wouldn't an 8 game playoff make a 16 max game schedule? 12 regular season games, 1 conference title game, 1 quarter finals game, 1 semi, 1 finals.

WebFire;730362 wrote:8 team playoff would result in a max 15 game schedule, with a conference champion. It can be done easily. The money excuse is bullshit. It can be done and make money too.

An 8 team playoff would result in 16 games max (12 regular season games, a conference championship game, three playoff games).

You honestly can't think that the money excuse is crap, do you? Do you really think that the decision makers in college football haven't done extensive research into this? Trust me, college football is about one thing: making money for the school. If having a playoff would increase revenue over the current bowl system, then they would make the switch. They aren't going to continue to do something if they're leaving money on the table.

EDIT:
Like bigkahuna said, my post was in response to sykotyk's and brutus161's posts about doing a 16 or 20 team playoff. Eight teams is the biggest they could do, but just like with the basketball tournament it won't stop there. It will continue to grow beyond that.

krambman;730441 wrote:An 8 team playoff would result in 16 games max (12 regular season games, a conference championship game, three playoff games).

You honestly can't think that the money excuse is crap, do you? Do you really think that the decision makers in college football haven't done extensive research into this? Trust me, college football is about one thing: making money for the school. If having a playoff would increase revenue over the current bowl system, then they would make the switch. They aren't going to continue to do something if they're leaving money on the table.

EDIT:
Like bigkahuna said, my post was in response to sykotyk's and brutus161's posts about doing a 16 or 20 team playoff. Eight teams is the biggest they could do, but just like with the basketball tournament it won't stop there. It will continue to grow beyond that.

My bad, I was thinking 11 games plus CCG. They could cut regular season back to 11 games though.

Yes, I think the money thing is an excuse. The money could be made WITH the 8 game playoff.

WebFire;730515 wrote:My bad, I was thinking 11 games plus CCG. They could cut regular season back to 11 games though.

Yes, I think the money thing is an excuse. The money could be made WITH the 8 game playoff.

It probably could, but it depends on the set up of games. If the 1st and/or second round/s of the tournament were to be held on campus, then I could see them agreeing to it. Take Michigan for example, who USUALLY has 8 home games/year. Cut that back to 7 with the chance of having a grand total of 9(from the playoffs), and they'd actually be gaining a game from the current format which means an extra $6 million just from tickets (assuming $60/ticket). Now, the only question is, Would top ranked schools be making More or Less from playoff games on site compared to payouts for Bowl Games?

I truly think that money would play a huge factor depending on the set up of the playoff system. Are they played on campus? Are they played in existing bowl games? If so, do they still get the bowl game pay out? Will the other schools still be able to go to bowl games? What about their pay out?

The Big Ten sent what 8 teams to last year? How much money did the conference make on those payouts? Would the conference had made as much money if OSU/Wisconsin were in a playoff and the other 6 went to bowl games?

Money is an issue depending on the set up of the mythical 8 team playoff.

WebFire;730515 wrote:My bad, I was thinking 11 games plus CCG. They could cut regular season back to 11 games though.

Yes, I think the money thing is an excuse. The money could be made WITH the 8 game playoff.

They could never cut the season back to 11 games. I'm just taking a guess here, but I assume that would cost the average school about $1 million a year and the bigger schools even more.

As far as a playoff and money goes how can you honest think that the college president's wouldn't do what would make them the most money? A college president's job simply is to increase enrollment, hire the best faculty and support staff, and increase revenue for the school. Since their primary job is to bring in money for the school they aren't going to continue doing something when there's another option out there that's better financially.

Let's consider this as well. Perhaps an eight team playoff could make as much if not more for those schools as the BCS does (though this isn't likely, or they already would have done it). But even if it does, bowl money is collected and distributed among all members of a conference. A playoff would financially hurt the rest of the bowl games. Less money for bowl games means lower payouts to conference participants, which means less money to go around. An eight team playoff would be seven games. You would need to compensate the first round participants at least as much as current BCS participants make and you would need to pay additional money each round.

Bowls come up with the money for their payouts through sponsors, TV deals, and advertising. If you did an eight team playoff (or larger) you would likely have the first round games hosted at the home fields of the four highest seeds, then do neutral sites for the semifinal and final. Some of these games likely wouldn't sell out, because people wouldn't be able to make travel plans on such short notice, wouldn't want to travel to games two or three weeks in a row, and because they would just be traveling for the game itself, instead of taking a week of vacation to enjoy bowl festivities (and we've already seen where smaller schools that make the BCS have a hard time selling their ticket allotment as it is). TV money could potentially be higher than it is for the BCS, but a playoff only adds two additional games to what the BCS offers now. Advertising and sponsors is really why it wouldn't be financially feasible. Viewership for first round playoff games would be lower than it is for the current BCS lineup. This means that advertisers won't be willing to pay as much for ad space during those games. Also, each bowl has it own corporate sponsors. All-State Sponsors the Sugar Bowl, Tostitos the Fiest Bowl, Discover the Orange Bowl and Vizio the Rose Bowl. It would be difficult to get anyone to be the sponsor the a college football playoff, or to get any sponsor to pay as much for a single playoff game as they do for a single bowl game.

Look, I'm no economist, but I know that people have done extensive research on the financial viability of a D-1A playoff, and everyone comes back saying the same thing: a college football playoff won't make nearly as much money as the BCS and current bowl system does. You're entitled to your own opinion on the issue even if that opinion is wrong. You may think a playoff will make more money, but all the facts say otherwise.

krambman;730573 wrote:They could never cut the season back to 11 games. I'm just taking a guess here, but I assume that would cost the average school about $1 million a year and the bigger schools even more.

As far as a playoff and money goes how can you honest think that the college president's wouldn't do what would make them the most money? A college president's job simply is to increase enrollment, hire the best faculty and support staff, and increase revenue for the school. Since their primary job is to bring in money for the school they aren't going to continue doing something when there's another option out there that's better financially.

Let's consider this as well. Perhaps an eight team playoff could make as much if not more for those schools as the BCS does (though this isn't likely, or they already would have done it). But even if it does, bowl money is collected and distributed among all members of a conference. A playoff would financially hurt the rest of the bowl games. Less money for bowl games means lower payouts to conference participants, which means less money to go around. An eight team playoff would be seven games. You would need to compensate the first round participants at least as much as current BCS participants make and you would need to pay additional money each round.

Bowls come up with the money for their payouts through sponsors, TV deals, and advertising. If you did an eight team playoff (or larger) you would likely have the first round games hosted at the home fields of the four highest seeds, then do neutral sites for the semifinal and final. Some of these games likely wouldn't sell out, because people wouldn't be able to make travel plans on such short notice, wouldn't want to travel to games two or three weeks in a row, and because they would just be traveling for the game itself, instead of taking a week of vacation to enjoy bowl festivities (and we've already seen where smaller schools that make the BCS have a hard time selling their ticket allotment as it is). TV money could potentially be higher than it is for the BCS, but a playoff only adds two additional games to what the BCS offers now. Advertising and sponsors is really why it wouldn't be financially feasible. Viewership for first round playoff games would be lower than it is for the current BCS lineup. This means that advertisers won't be willing to pay as much for ad space during those games. Also, each bowl has it own corporate sponsors. All-State Sponsors the Sugar Bowl, Tostitos the Fiest Bowl, Discover the Orange Bowl and Vizio the Rose Bowl. It would be difficult to get anyone to be the sponsor the a college football playoff, or to get any sponsor to pay as much for a single playoff game as they do for a single bowl game.

Look, I'm no economist, but I know that people have done extensive research on the financial viability of a D-1A playoff, and everyone comes back saying the same thing: a college football playoff won't make nearly as much money as the BCS and current bowl system does. You're entitled to your own opinion on the issue even if that opinion is wrong. You may think a playoff will make more money, but all the facts say otherwise.

Look no farther than the opening days of the NCAA Tournament. Rarely do you see see 1st weekend games with big crowds. Hell, Duke and UNC were playing in NC and didn't sell out the entire house.

It could be a repeat of that.

bigkahuna;730543 wrote:It probably could, but it depends on the set up of games. If the 1st and/or second round/s of the tournament were to be held on campus, then I could see them agreeing to it. Take Michigan for example, who USUALLY has 8 home games/year. Cut that back to 7 with the chance of having a grand total of 9(from the playoffs), and they'd actually be gaining a game from the current format which means an extra $6 million just from tickets (assuming $60/ticket). Now, the only question is, Would top ranked schools be making More or Less from playoff games on site compared to payouts for Bowl Games?

I truly think that money would play a huge factor depending on the set up of the playoff system. Are they played on campus? Are they played in existing bowl games? If so, do they still get the bowl game pay out? Will the other schools still be able to go to bowl games? What about their pay out?

The Big Ten sent what 8 teams to last year? How much money did the conference make on those payouts? Would the conference had made as much money if OSU/Wisconsin were in a playoff and the other 6 went to bowl games?

Money is an issue depending on the set up of the mythical 8 team playoff.

Four teams getting an extra home game every year wouldn't make up for the fact that 116 teams would lose at least one home game every other year. Also, ticket prices would be the same at all four sites because it would be postseason play, so the NCAA would set the face value of the tickets. Ticket sales wouldn't matter much as far as what the home team would make (they would only get a portion of the gate). Operating expenses for the game would come out of the gate, but every team would get paid the same amount for making it into the playoff and playing in the first round whether they are hosting or not. The host school would really only make additional money from parking and concessions.

Let's also look at the top four teams in the BCS at the end of last season who would have hosted first round games. Auburn: 87,500 seats, Oregon: 54,000 seats, TCU: 44,000 seats, 50,000. There's a substantial difference between Jordan-Hare Stadium in Auburn and Amon Carter Stadium at TCU. If there were ever a year where OSU and Boise State both finished in the top four there would be a difference of nearly 70,000 seat difference. This is one of the biggest reasons having the higher seed host an opening round game would be problematic.

This last year the Big Ten made $35,800,000 in bowl revenue. When that gets divided among the 11 teams that's a payout of $3,254,545 per school. If we had a playoff the current bowl system would remain in place much like the NIT. If the current BCS bowls were used on a rotating basis as hosts for playoff games they would still need to make as much money as they did as traditional bowl games. Then playoff plus other bowls would also need to guarantee conferences as much (really they would need to guarantee more) money as they make now. A playoff will only happen if it's created as a joint venture between the bowls and the schools. It's theoretically possible that the bowls could still end up offering more money than a playoff, making some conferences decide not to participate in a playoff because they would lose money.

The other problem with an eight team playoff is deciding who gets in. Currently six conference are guaranteed births in BCS bowls. You would either need to give those six conference champions automatic births into the playoff (allowing for only two at-large teams) or you would need to guarantee those six conference the same money even if they didn't put a team in the playoff (that would have meant paying the Big East and ACC $18 million this past year without a team in the playoffs). Even though a majority of the schools playing D-1A football are in BCS conferences, the other five conferences would never agree to an 8-team playoff where six of the spots were guaranteed automatic births, and the six BCS conference wouldn't agree to an eight team playoff without their champions getting in automatically. Automatic bids into BCS bowls aren't a big deal now because that's how all bowl participants are decided (conference tie-ins). The national championship game on the other hand has no such qualifications. The top two teams in the final BCS rankings, whether they are from a BCS conference or whether or not they won their conference. You can't give automatic births into a playoff for conference champions unless all 11 conference champs get in.

These are just some of the issues that most don't think about when they say that a playoff would make more money or when they think that going from the BCS to a playoff would be an easy transition. People who think that are either ignorant of the issues involved, or they choose to be uninformed of all the factors. Some quick online research and common sense goes a long way.

krambman;729372 wrote:Here are the BCS champions for the past 10 years.

2001 - Miami (FL)
2002 - Ohio State
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - Florida
2007 - LSU
2008 - Florida
2009 - Alabama
2010 - Aurburn

Now, tell me who on that list wasn't the best team in college football the year they won the title. And when I say the best, I mean the best from beginning to end, not the best at the end of the season (many years people argue that a team like USC who suffered an early loss or two finishes the season playing as well or better than anyone else). I'm not talking about those teams, I'm talking about the best team from game one all the way through game 13/14.

On this list you could make an argument that Miami was the best in 2002, but both Miami and OSU were undefeated and OSU beat them.

In 2003 USC was ranked #1 in both human polls going into the bowl games and was voted #1 in the AP after the bowls. The BCS changed their formula after this season though, and had they been using the current formula they use now USC would have been in the title game. This is the only year you can legitimately say that the best team didn't necessarily win.

In 2004 USC won but that bowl win has been vacated, though they have yet to be stripped of the national championship for that year. Yes, Auburn was also undefeated that year, but USC was so dominant from beginning to end that few could reasonably argue that they were better than the USC team that was in the field that year.

In 2006 Ohio State was the best from beginning to end and they laid an egg of epic proportions against Florida.

In 2007 there was no "beat team."


As far as I see it, there are really only two champions in the last ten years (2003 and 2006) that the best team from beginning to end didn't win the championship in college football. Again, a playoff is about getting a champion, not about finding the best team. The BCS is also about getting a champion, but making the best team the champion.

I don't really think this is even worth arguing. There is literally no way that you can say that the BCS as it is currently set up is a better indicator of the best team than a playoff. But there are already a ton of playoff vs BCS threads on this forum that you can find and I really don't want to rehash the same argument over and over again before Enigmaax and ytownfootball come in here and bring up the same points over and over again so I bring up the same points over and over again. So I'll leave it to rest.

krambman;730573 wrote:They could never cut the season back to 11 games. I'm just taking a guess here, but I assume that would cost the average school about $1 million a year and the bigger schools even more.

Ummm, it hasn't been 12 game regular season for very long. They COULD easily go back to 11. Now, they may not WANT to, because, gasp, they may lose money.

krambman;730573 wrote:As far as a playoff and money goes how can you honest think that the college president's wouldn't do what would make them the most money? A college president's job simply is to increase enrollment, hire the best faculty and support staff, and increase revenue for the school. Since their primary job is to bring in money for the school they aren't going to continue doing something when there's another option out there that's better financially.

So you are saying that they are at the absolute best solutions, financially, that they ever will be? Why was the bowl system born then? The BCS? Things evolve man. By your theory we wouldn't be playing bowl games because "I'm sure someone thought it through and if they could make more money they'd do it." But guess what, they could make money and they implemented it.

Money should be part of the equation, not the entire equation.

Here's the solution:

8 team playoff. All are home-field advantage games except for the championship game, which is a rotated bowl game just like it is now. Perhaps the losers of the playoff games can be placed into another bowl game (this I'm still thinking through). All other teams not in the playoffs play in bowl games just like they do now.

Bowl structure and sponsors stay the same. Teams make money from the bowls. Conferences still share the revenue (I don't know why that would change).