I watch very few college basketball games until the conference starts. The games don't mean anything.

 

It's very nice to be in that position. Unfortunately, not every team is on that ship. For my own alma mater, Dayton, we have to win almost all of our out-of-conference games to have a shot at making the tournament if we don't win the A-10 tournament. A loss to the wrong team early in the season can do enough damage to our RPI to keep us relegated to the NIT. Nonconference games are VERY important to teams in those middle conferences.

The best playoff proposal IMO is a sixteen team playoff with each of the 11 conferences champions (each conference would have a championship game) and 5 at-large bids. The first three rounds, 14 games, would use existing bowl games and then a true BCS championship game. If teams are playing to be their conference champion or one of the five at-large bids how does that make the regular season irrelevant?

 

I don’t buy the argument that a playoff would take away from the regular season. As it stands now there are possibly three teams who will finish undefeated and not even have a chance at the championship. That IMO takes away from the regular season. I don’t remember their ever being too much argument over who the NCAA basketball or DIV II football champion is every year, but there is always debate when it comes to DIV I football.

Interesting take on the Dan Patrick show this morning. It's his contention that one of these years, the SEC will say, "Why can only one of our teams play in the BCS "national championship" game, and not two"? With its money and influence, it will be the SEC that ultimately causes change to be instituted.

I hate when people use this college basketball argument as a reason for why college football should stay the same. For one if college football did get a playoff it wouldnt be 64 teams, or 32 teams. AT MOST it would be 16 teams, and probably more likely 8 teams would be the most. 8 spots is not many spots to fill. Also college football has a lot less games than college basketball. So basically every game would still mean a TON for every team, because one lost could end your chances of making the playoffs then. So people's theory about the games won't mean as much, is just wrong. They still will mean just as much, because the only way to know for sure you make the playoffs is by going undefeated or winning the conference if you in a BCS conference. So I mean seriously every single game would mean a ton then still. Not to mention even with a 8 team playoff, you could still keep all the bowl games. Having a playoff system really would not change much at all with college football, every game would still be just as important. But for the first time ever college football will actually be crowning a champion on the field, instead of based on opinions on who the top 2 teams are.

 

I think that's a point many people overlook...a 4 or 8 team playoff in college football would hardly suck the life from the regular season. Obviously, it would give you a little more wiggle room, but you still wouldn't want to lose more than once...

 

Hypothetically...say you instituted a system where the 6 major conference champions got automatic bids, and then 2 at-large bids were rewarded. These teams would still have nearly the same pressure to win every game like they do now. JMO

Interesting take on the Dan Patrick show this morning. It's his contention that one of these years, the SEC will say, "Why can only one of our teams play in the BCS "national championship" game, and not two"? With its money and influence, it will be the SEC that ultimately causes change to be instituted.

 

This is an excellent point. I'm not sure the SEC doesn't have the 2 best / most deserving teams this year.

The best playoff proposal IMO is a sixteen team playoff with each of the 11 conferences champions (each conference would have a championship game) and 5 at-large bids. The first three rounds, 14 games, would use existing bowl games and then a true BCS championship game. If teams are playing to be their conference champion or one of the five at-large bids how does that make the regular season irrelevant?

 

I don’t buy the argument that a playoff would take away from the regular season. As it stands now there are possibly three teams who will finish undefeated and not even have a chance at the championship. That IMO takes away from the regular season. I don’t remember their ever being too much argument over who the NCAA basketball or DIV II football champion is every year, but there is always debate when it comes to DIV I football.

 

I agree w/ all of that except using existing bowl games, b/c some teams could play 4 bowl games and some schools none. The way I see it, do it like DII and DIII. Make it a 10 week regular season w/ a conference championship game in week 11. From there take 16 teams. All teams qualify for the bowl games as they would normally (generally by finish in their conference and which bowl games the conference has a contract with.) As you lose in the playoffs, you fill your conferences bowl slot after you lose in the playoff, as most bowl games that the play-off teams would qualify for would be played after the first rounds.

I agree w/ all of that except using existing bowl games, b/c some teams could play 4 bowl games and some schools none. The way I see it, do it like DII and DIII. Make it a 10 week regular season w/ a conference championship game in week 11. From there take 16 teams. All teams qualify for the bowl games as they would normally (generally by finish in their conference and which bowl games the conference has a contract with.) As you lose in the playoffs, you fill your conferences bowl slot after you lose in the playoff, as most bowl games that the play-off teams would qualify for would be played after the first rounds.

 

Keeping the current bowl structure seems to be one of the main arguments the college presidents make against a playoff system. IMO if they kept all of the current bowl games, of which there are too many anyway, and use about half for a playoff all of the bowls would actually make more money. The main drawback of having a team like Florida, Texas, USC, or Ohio State play in three bowl games instead of one is that 12 six or seven win teams don’t get a bowl bid. However, if you watch most of the middle to late December bowls the stands are empty anyway. I say make the bowls mean something again, there would still be roughly 19 non-playoff bowls for teams to play in who don’t make the playoffs, but are at least better then 7-5 and 5th place in their conference.

Keeping the current bowl structure seems to be one of the main arguments the college presidents make against a playoff system. IMO if they kept all of the current bowl games, of which there are too many anyway, and use about half for a playoff all of the bowls would actually make more money. The main drawback of having a team like Florida, Texas, USC, or Ohio State play in three bowl games instead of one is that 12 six or seven win teams don’t get a bowl bid. However, if you watch most of the middle to late December bowls the stands are empty anyway. I say make the bowls mean something again, there would still be roughly 19 non-playoff bowls for teams to play in who don’t make the playoffs, but are at least better then 7-5 and 5th place in their conference.

 

I agree the stands are empty, but it gives exposure to some teams that don't normally get it. I would love to watch Florida play in four bowls as opposed to a 6 win Vanderbilt or Miss. St., but I don't think that it is the fairest approach.

Here are some of the current teams projected to go bowling by CBS sports and their current record:

 

Texas A&M 5-5

Florida St 5-5

Minnesota 6-4

Louisiana-Monroe 6-4

Bowling Green 5-5

Wyoming 5-5

Tennessee 5-5

 

To me it doesn’t make sense that teams that perform marginally should benefit from bowl revenue and extra practice, even though many probably need the extra practice, at the expense of allowing teams that are undefeated or have one or two losses to compete in a playoff to determine a true and undisputed National Champion. JMO.

I agree the stands are empty, but it gives exposure to some teams that don't normally get it. I would love to watch Florida play in four bowls as opposed to a 6 win Vanderbilt or Miss. St., but I don't think that it is the fairest approach.

 

I don’t look at as being fair or unfair. If you compete and are successful throughout the season and in your conference and come through the season and make the playoffs then you should have the chance to compete for the national championship. Teams that have 5 or 6 losses should not be rewarded for marginal performance.

 

If they want exposure then I would say perform better on the field. Look at what Boise State has done over the past five years. This would give teams from the non-automatic bid conferences even more exposure then they get now if they make the playoffs and prove they can play with an Alabama, Texas, Florida, etc…

Everyone is different, and I just don't get real excited about B-Ball until January. Nothing to do with the playoffs or anything its just me. I still watch some games. And I do a bracket every year, but Mama always beats me.

I think that's a point many people overlook...a 4 or 8 team playoff in college football would hardly suck the life from the regular season. Obviously, it would give you a little more wiggle room, but you still wouldn't want to lose more than once...

 

Hypothetically...say you instituted a system where the 6 major conference champions got automatic bids, and then 2 at-large bids were rewarded. These teams would still have nearly the same pressure to win every game like they do now. JMO

 

Exactly! I mean people don't seem to realize that if there is a playoff in football, that it seriously won't be that big of a tournament and IMO the biggest we would see is an 8 team tournament. College football also does not play as many games as other sports, so with only a chance at 8 spots and not as many games. You really don't have much room for error at all, and one lost could still keep you out of the playoffs. So I mean the season would still be just as important and just as exciting. I really don't see why people dont get that. So the season would still be just as good, but we also would have a better system at crowning a true Champion.

This is an excellent point. I'm not sure the SEC doesn't have the 2 best / most deserving teams this year.

 

Interesting take on the Dan Patrick show this morning. It's his contention that one of these years, the SEC will say, "Why can only one of our teams play in the BCS "national championship" game, and not two"? With its money and influence, it will be the SEC that ultimately causes change to be instituted.

 

I disagree. You want a national champion that can't even win their own conference????

 

How is that determining the best team in the nation?

I think that's a point many people overlook...a 4 or 8 team playoff in college football would hardly suck the life from the regular season. Obviously, it would give you a little more wiggle room, but you still wouldn't want to lose more than once...

 

Hypothetically...say you instituted a system where the 6 major conference champions got automatic bids, and then 2 at-large bids were rewarded. These teams would still have nearly the same pressure to win every game like they do now. JMO

 

All that does is move the argument over which 1-loss team gets in to is this 2-loss team better than this 1-loss team.

 

With your hypothetical situation, who do you leave out from TCU, Boise St or Alabama/Florida loser? Assuming TCU and Boise St win out.

 

You don't think the debate is not going to be the same with having to leave a team out?

 

Especially when you put in a conference champion that is not as good as Alabama/Florida loser.

I disagree. You want a national champion that can't even win their own conference????

 

How is that determining the best team in the nation?

 

You misunderstand. Dan Patrick says that in order for the current system of determining a national champion to change, the all-powerful SEC will be the force that gets it done.