PDA

View Full Version : Please let the BCS end


gwallaia
12-07-2009, 09:21 PM
Here's the plan to do it. This makes so much sense. I can't wait for the book to come out.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AqumhsGDeXQuD0FuurQdk_gcvrYF?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Carr Bombed
12-07-2009, 09:49 PM
Scratch the 16-team field.......that's completely unrealistic, because it would have 0 chance of ever getting passed. They'll have to start with a much smaller field and work from there.

kastofsna
12-07-2009, 09:57 PM
8 or 12 teams.

thunderkyss
12-07-2009, 09:58 PM
Here's the plan to do it. This makes so much sense. I can't wait for the book to come out.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AqumhsGDeXQuD0FuurQdk_gcvrYF?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I don't like cutting the bowl games out of the equation all-together.

In order to keep some semblence of what we have now, & bring in a play-off system, I would suggest the 18 play-off games be held at the 18 top Bowls, They could still rotate the NC game between the Rose, Sugar, Orange & whatever other bowl they rotate through there..... Cotton??

Should keep every body happy.

kastofsna
12-07-2009, 10:07 PM
I don't like cutting the bowl games out of the equation all-together.

In order to keep some semblence of what we have now, & bring in a play-off system, I would suggest the 18 play-off games be held at the 18 top Bowls, They could still rotate the NC game between the Rose, Sugar, Orange & whatever other bowl they rotate through there..... Cotton??

Should keep every body happy.

everybody except the bowls. they don't want their games to be a "stepping stone." they want it to be a destination spot.

the only way to have playoffs is to completely leave the bowls out of it

TimeKiller
12-08-2009, 07:59 AM
Why can't they keep the bowls, use them for everyone except the top 4 teams? Hold a playoff like a superbowl, in random cities every year. Friday night 1 vs 3, Saturday 2 vs 4, then sunday winner vs winner. Call it the death bowl for having to play two games in a weekend.

Goldensilence
12-08-2009, 06:08 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4725887

CoastalTexan
12-08-2009, 08:47 PM
FCS (D1AA) uses 16 Teams and it works just fine. In fact they are expanding to 20 teams in a year or two.

Corrosion
12-09-2009, 01:00 AM
everybody except the bowls. they don't want their games to be a "stepping stone." they want it to be a destination spot.

the only way to have playoffs is to completely leave the bowls out of it

There is only One "Destination Spot" each year as it is ..... the rest of those games are pretty much pointless. The use of the bowl games in a playoff system would make them meaningfull rather than cosmetic.

Dan B.
12-09-2009, 01:19 AM
I don't want neutral bowl sites for playoffs (at least for the first few rounds) because I think that teams are designed for their environment.

I think that this is the problem with the Big 10. A team that is designed to win the conference is not designed to play in perfect subtropical climates. The best Big 10 teams inevitably rely on a stout front 7 on defense and a solid and steady running game. This is ideal for games played in freezing snow at Camp Randall or the Horseshoe. It doesn't work so well in the Superdome. I want to see some of these pass happy teams from California and Florida go into Happy Valley and win.

Plus I just like football in cold weather. It feels right.

Dan B.
12-09-2009, 01:58 AM
What about a post Bowl Game playoff?

I'm not talking about a +1. I'm talking about eliminating the BCS and reinstituting the old Bowl Games (with a tweak), then picking the top 8 teams after every Bowl is played on New Year's Day and playing through the month of January for the Championship.

Some sort of force mechanism would probably be required in order to make the big Bowl games let lower regarded teams play for the opportunity to go on to the playoffs. Something similar to the current rules, say forcing them to pick a team ranked in the top 15, might work.

This would provide the premium non conference matchup that the lower level teams need to get credibility. It would retain the importance of the Bowl Games (or at least the 12-16 or so that would affect the playoff). It would only add 1 more game than an 8 game playoff would, and the extra game would be highly important and closely watched.

LonerATO
12-09-2009, 03:59 AM
I find the 1-AA playoffs 10x better then the bowl games. Hell I had Richmond picked to win it all and they were the lowest seed. When Texas State almost made it to the championship game a few years the city was in a fervor.

Corrosion
12-09-2009, 04:31 AM
I find the 1-AA playoffs 10x better then the bowl games. Hell I had Richmond picked to win it all and they were the lowest seed. When Texas State almost made it to the championship game a few years the city was in a fervor.

Its all about money , if some small school makes a run they think they will lose tv money .... hell , I think it would be more exciting to see some small school make a run like in the basketball tourney.

TexanBacker93
12-09-2009, 10:49 AM
Its all about money , if some small school makes a run they think they will lose tv money .... hell , I think it would be more exciting to see some small school make a run like in the basketball tourney.

They wouldn't lose TV money, though. Those contracts are in place before the playoffs start. Heck, they're in place for years. The money would be coming in from the advertisers well before a cinderella team made a run. The only money that gets lost is to the people at the top bowls that have no affiliation to college football other than being on a board of directors that sponsors a bowl game.

The only argument I ever hear from BCS officials is that it is too hard on the student athletes. How is it ok for the FCS kids to play in a playoff when most of them actually have to go to class and take tests because they won't be playing on Sundays in the future?