Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter and Jeff Passan co-wrote Death to the BCS. It is a great book outlining why we can and should have a college football playoff.

 

It is a great read with too many details to get into here, but they put together a model for a playoff system for football. The NCAA tourney excitement caused me to re-look at the system discussed in this book. If it happened, here is what it would look like.

 

16 team playoff- bowl championship division conference champs get an automatic bid (11 automatic bids- ties settled by head to head result, 3 way ties by higher BCS standing) with 5 at-large bids (which I will concede to the top 5 non conference winners in the BCS poll). I decided seeding.

 

South Bracket

1. Auburn (SEC Champ) vs 16. Troy (Sun Belt Champ)

8. Arkansas (SEC at large) vs. 9. Michigan St. (Big 10 at large)

 

Mid West Bracket

4. Wisconsin (Big 10 at Champ) vs 13. UConn (Big East Champ)

5. Stanford (Pac 10 at large) vs 12. Virginia Tech (ACC Champ)

 

West Bracket

2. Oregon (Pac 10 Champ) vs 15. Miami, Oh. (MAC Champ)

7. Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) vs 10. LSU (SEC at large)

 

East Bracket

3. TCU (MWC Champ) vs 14. Central Florida (Conference USA Champ)

6. Ohio St. (Big 10 at large) vs 11. Boise St. (WAC Champ)

 

 

South Bracket winner plays Midwest Bracket winner in Final Four. West Bracket winner plays East Bracket winner in Final four. Semi-final winners meet in championship game.

 

Oh man, what could have been!

16 would be too big for me. One of College footballs reasons for not having a playoff is that it makes the regular season mean more. So I think 8 would do just fine for that reason. Let the 6 BCS conference champions make the field, and then two at large. Meaning if you one of the top teams in the nation from a non major confrence like a Boise State, or TCU was the past two years then you would make it. However no reason to have teams that probably wouldn't even be ranked who won their conferences make it. Only if they finish say in the top 6 or something in the BCS do they.

 

Then you can play the first round of the playoffs the week after the season endson the top seeds home field. Then the 4 thats left, will play against each other in the BCS Bowls. The two that win play the next week for the National Championship. This way it doesn't take to much time, the teams still get a few weeks off before the semi-final games, and you could still keep all the bowls.

I have seen something very similar to that in the past, and completely love it. Sorry FC, but just having two at-large berths just doesn't cut it for me. Because you'd be right back into the same situation where if you had two undefeated teams playing in the SEC championship game, and an undefeated Boise State and TCU...there's going to be somebody left out. And more than likely it's going to be Boise State or TCU. Shoot, there might even be people who say a two-loss SEC team is better (or more deserving) than one of those.

 

Now, I realize that we could sit down and come up with a dozen different scenarios where somebody "deserving" is going to get left out. However, I think that winning your conference should amount to something...regardless of what conference you're in. And having 5 at-large berths should help cover those teams that are more than likely top-10 caliber type of teams that may have lost a tie-breaker to another similar type team from their conference.

 

Shoot, we do playoffs in high school, the other divisions in college, and even in the pro's...and I never hear anybody complaining about that. I mean, if we adopt that "regular season counts...and only one game to decide the championship" then this past year's Super Bowl would have been New England vs. Atlanta! Two teams that didn't even make it to their conference championship games, even after getting a bye the first round.

 

Pure and simple, I'd rather see the championship settled on the field, rather than in the polls.

I agree that a playoff is needed. I also will agree that no matter how you slice it not everyone is going to be happy. The major players (major Conferences) are power and money hungry. So they will be crying the most.

Every Conference champion gets an automatic bid. Your seed is based on how you finish in the Coaches poll. Make the coaches ballots public to make sure things are on the up and up.

Then 5 at large bids given to teams that score the highest based on the follow criteria.

25 pts for every win over a Top 25 opponent – This will ensure teams to play tougher schedule.

15pts for playing a Top 25 opponent – This helps teams from mid-majors not to be penalized for trying to improve themselves by playing bigger schools.

Points based on where you finish in the Coaches poll 25 for number 1 and drops one point per spot you finish.

You get 50 points if you beat any of the conference champions from the 10 conferences during the regular season.

16 would be too big for me. One of College footballs reasons for not having a playoff is that it makes the regular season mean more. So I think 8 would do just fine for that reason. Let the 6 BCS conference champions make the field, and then two at large. Meaning if you one of the top teams in the nation from a non major confrence like a Boise State, or TCU was the past two years then you would make it. However no reason to have teams that probably wouldn't even be ranked who won their conferences make it. Only if they finish say in the top 6 or something in the BCS do they.

 

Then you can play the first round of the playoffs the week after the season endson the top seeds home field. Then the 4 thats left, will play against each other in the BCS Bowls. The two that win play the next week for the National Championship. This way it doesn't take to much time, the teams still get a few weeks off before the semi-final games, and you could still keep all the bowls.

 

I absolutely love the playoff idea but I agree with you FC that an 8-teamer would be best. I actually really like the plan to SI's Stewart Mandel puts out every year. But a playoff is a playoff and most everyone would be happy with something. Everything that happens in regard to running it would just be semantics!

Why is eight better than 16, which works for every other division in college football?

Who do you all think would have played for that championship?

Why is eight better than 16, which works for every other division in college football?

 

Because I don't think there are 16 teams annually that are national championship caliber. I'm not sure if there are 8, but I do think there are perhaps 6 every season. An 8 team format allows for that.

Because I don't think there are 16 teams annually that are national championship caliber. I'm not sure if there are 8, but I do think there are perhaps 6 every season. An 8 team format allows for that.

 

I guess that begs the question, what qualifies as national championship caliber? I mean, nobody would've thought Butler was NC caliber in basketball last year...and yet they nearly won the whole darn thing. People put it off as a one year "fluke" that a school that size could compete. And yet, here they are again, in the Final Four. I think what Boise State and TCU have done over the past couple of years warrants just as much consideration. You never know what might happen!

 

So, if you just take the six BCS conference champions, that would've put in Auburn, Wisconsin, UConn, VaTech, Oregon and Oklahoma. Now you're looking to just pick 2 from Boise St., TCU, Ohio State, Stanford, LSU, Michigan State and Arkansas? Too much debate there. Give me one more round, and a field of 16.

I guess that begs the question, what qualifies as national championship caliber? I mean, nobody would've thought Butler was NC caliber in basketball last year...and yet they nearly won the whole darn thing. People put it off as a one year "fluke" that a school that size could compete. And yet, here they are again, in the Final Four. I think what Boise State and TCU have done over the past couple of years warrants just as much consideration. You never know what might happen!

 

I understand your point completely. And I'm not necessarily against a 16-team field. I was saying more that I would prefer an 8-team tournament over a 16-team tournament. But I'm not someone who can't be convinced otherwise.

Because I don't think there are 16 teams annually that are national championship caliber. I'm not sure if there are 8, but I do think there are perhaps 6 every season. An 8 team format allows for that.

Alabama was ranked 16th in the BCS rankings this season, which I think is a crock, but I would certainly consider the Tide to have been a legitimate national contender in a tournament.

 

I think there could easily be more than eight teams in a given year that could win a tournament, and therefore a 16-team field is most appropriate.

Who do you all think would have played for that championship?

 

I would predict the same title game, Oregon vs Auburn- of course, that is why they play the tourney. It is next to impossible to get all the upsets correct. I do not know what would happen if TCU got some of these folks on neutral fields.

I agree that a playoff is needed. I also will agree that no matter how you slice it not everyone is going to be happy. The major players (major Conferences) are power and money hungry. So they will be crying the most.

Every Conference champion gets an automatic bid. Your seed is based on how you finish in the Coaches poll. Make the coaches ballots public to make sure things are on the up and up.

Then 5 at large bids given to teams that score the highest based on the follow criteria.

25 pts for every win over a Top 25 opponent – This will ensure teams to play tougher schedule.

15pts for playing a Top 25 opponent – This helps teams from mid-majors not to be penalized for trying to improve themselves by playing bigger schools.

Points based on where you finish in the Coaches poll 25 for number 1 and drops one point per spot you finish.

You get 50 points if you beat any of the conference champions from the 10 conferences during the regular season.

 

I do think this system, as you outline it, would give a distinct advantage to BCS conference teams in acquiring at-large bids. Although, I am not sure how you neutralize this. For instance, if I am LSU, I would just schedule the top 4 teams in the Sun Belt in preseason as my non-conference game, since I get 50 points for beating the champ. Then, I will rack up points for playing my normal SEC schedule. In a good year for me (let's say 9-3 without a title game appearance), I could go 3-3 vs. the top 25 and easily rack up 165 points without including my ranking. No way a mid-major can compete with that. I do not know that I am more deserving to be in a tourney than say a one loss Nevada, but I would dominate them based on points.

 

I am not sure how you make this right, but I would tweak your system a bit. We could brainstorm this a bit and figure out something more equitable. I am not sure a selection committee is not the way to go.

Because I don't think there are 16 teams annually that are national championship caliber. I'm not sure if there are 8, but I do think there are perhaps 6 every season. An 8 team format allows for that.

 

I do not think that 68 teams are championship caliber in basketball, but they do it any way. 68 out of 346 teams make it in basketball, or 19.6%. I am proposing 16 out of 120 make the football playoff, or 13.3% The basketball model has shown the ability to draw so much revenue that I think you would want to model this as close as possible.

I do not think that 68 teams are championship caliber in basketball, but they do it any way. 68 out of 346 teams make it in basketball, or 19.6%. I am proposing 16 out of 120 make the football playoff, or 13.3% The basketball model has shown the ability to draw so much revenue that I think you would want to model this as close as possible.

 

I think you are right on the money part. If the NCAA ever did institute a playoff, they'd go to 16-teams just because of the astronomical money it would pull in.