A 16-team playoff would be near impossible. I just don't see the coaches and everybody else agreeing with it because of the amount of additional games it would add to the season.

 

I bet every coach in the country not named Les Miles or Nick Saban would agree to it this season. The first round games being at home would get the AD's and presidents to buy in based on revenue. Every non-BCS league participant would go for it because they have a shot.

 

It would add games for 8 teams (if you are a bowl team anyway, as all of the teams I put into the playoff are)- 1 game for 4 teams, 2 games for 2 teams and three games for two teams. If LSU made the title game in my system, they would play 16 games this season. For comparison, Trinity played 14. The Texas 5A state champ will play 16 games.

 

The only way I see this as viable is if they started playing fairly early after the season ended instead of this long layoff they have. Maybe give them a week off after the conference championships end and then start the playoff would be the best bet.

 

100% agree

 

With this being said, I would not give the current non-AQ conferences bids to the playoff. In the end, the best teams from the those conferences will present themselves and if they are good enough to go undefeated with their schedule or 1 loss to a fairly good team then they should be considered. How did we recognize TCU and Boise State? Because they ran through their schedules unblemished and did it in fashion. If a team does that, then you should give them consideration of making the playoffs.

 

I agree that this is the way it should be, but it does not happen this way in actuality. Look at Boise St. this year- they would pound Va. Tech and handle Michigan, IMO. Yet, there is no BCS game for them even though they were ranked higher in the BCS poll. Even in their best year, those teams do not get a shot at the National Championship. I do not know if they would win it, but I do not like the idea of freezing these teams out.

 

I'm actually in favor of the Plus-1 system as really only the top 5 teams have a realistic shot at winning the National Title (I believe the biggest jump ever was from Notre Dame when they went from #6 to #1). Plus-1 would have LSU vs. Stanford and Alabama vs. Oklahoma State aho have been talked about as National Title Contenders the entire year and would all be deserving. I don't know someone could say someone like Southern Mississippi from a non-AQ conference who had 3 losses could be deserving and thats why I prefer having a smaller number of playoff teams as opposed to a larger number.

 

I like the idea of expanding beyond a plus one and giving more teams a chance. Again, I am not sure if Arkansas St. would ever upset anyone, but if they are at the FBS level and they win their division, I do not see a valid argument for leaving them out. Give them their shot and give LSU their payday with the first round game and I think everyone wins, JMO.

A 16 team play is no good, an 8 team playoff would be the best thing. You take the 6 conference champions from the BCS conferences, and then have two at larges. So teams like a Boise could make it, or an Bama who could make it still even though they didn't win the conference championshp.

 

You have the first round of the playoffs the week after the season ends with the top 4 seeds having their games at home. Then you get your normal few week break, and play the semi finals in two BCS bowls that rotate every year, and then the next week is the Championship. This way the season still means something because the only way to guarntee you make the playoffs is winning your conference, but it also gives a small school a shot like Boise. It also allows all the other bowls to be in place still. Best of all it lets it be settled on the field.

 

Boise St. still does not make it in this system this year. Your system has West Virginia and Clemson in and Boise St. and Kansas St. out- I just think that this is still flawed. Why do we need the 6 BCS schools represented? Let's take the top 4 conferences, as determined by the BCS computer formula, and their champs and then leave the other 4 at large spots for the top 4 BCS poll at large teams and now I could settle, maybe (I can not believe so many people like the idea of freezing out the little guy).

Unfortunately for BCS detractors and playoff proponents, the BCS got it right again. As long as the BCS keeps putting the right two teams in the title game, nothing is going to change.

 

That is the thing WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT IT RIGHT! It is opinion that Alabama is the second best team in the country. Yes most of us all agree that Bama is the 2nd best team, but once again we don't know that. We have not seen say a Oklahoma St. and Bama play against each other to know for sure that Bama is the better team. It is opinion not a fact. If we know anything about sports, that is people's opinions get proved wrong all the time in sports. Oklahoma State deserved a shot to compete for the title as Big 12 Champion, but they don't get it because people believe Bama is better, when no on knows for sure since we didn't see them settle it on the field.

 

For the record I do think Bama is the 2nd best team. However opinions should not determine who should be in the title game.

Boise St. still does not make it in this system this year. Your system has West Virginia and Clemson in and Boise St. and Kansas St. out- I just think that this is still flawed. Why do we need the 6 BCS schools represented? Let's take the top 4 conferences, as determined by the BCS computer formula, and their champs and then leave the other 4 at large spots for the top 4 BCS poll at large teams and now I could settle, maybe (I can not believe so many people like the idea of freezing out the little guy).

 

Yes they probably would be left out this year. Kansas State would be left out, but they would have had a shot to make the playoffs if they just won their conference title game. That is the thing the thing I presented makes to know for a fact if they win on the field, they can at least earn a shot to compete for the title. They just have to win their conference championship. So most likely the two at larges in the field I said would have been Bama and either Stanford or Boise. Which probably would have been Stanford this year, and that is fine. A team like Boise can't afford to lose a game, however they would have known they would have gotten in if they won out. In the system we have now, they could have won out and still not had a shot for the title. The system I presented makes the regular season still just as important, but allows teams to know that they if win on the field then they won't be left out because of peoples opinions. Win your conference and your in no questions asked. Then if your a small school like Boise then you have to take care of business against your weaker teams have not have a bad loss.

Yes they probably would be left out this year. Kansas State would be left out, but they would have had a shot to make the playoffs if they just won their conference title game. That is the thing the thing I presented makes to know for a fact if they win on the field, they can at least earn a shot to compete for the title. They just have to win their conference championship. So most likely the two at larges in the field I said would have been Bama and either Stanford or Boise. Which probably would have been Stanford this year, and that is fine. A team like Boise can't afford to lose a game, however they would have known they would have gotten in if they won out. In the system we have now, they could have won out and still not had a shot for the title. The system I presented makes the regular season still just as important, but allows teams to know that they if win on the field then they won't be left out because of peoples opinions. Win your conference and your in no questions asked. Then if your a small school like Boise then you have to take care of business against your weaker teams have not have a bad loss.

 

I just can not support a system where Boise beats Georgia in Atlanta and gets left out while West Virginia beats no one and gets in. Houston could have gone unbeaten this year and still missed the playoffs in your system because Stanford and Alabama would have gotten the at large bids. There has to be a way to account for bad conferences getting automatic bids- either let them all in (conference winners) or find a system that only lets the good ones in, IMO.

I don't think they got it right....

Bama / Stanford? :confused:

Unfortunately for BCS detractors and playoff proponents, the BCS got it right again. As long as the BCS keeps putting the right two teams in the title game, nothing is going to change.

 

They definitely did for #1 and highly likely for #2, the rest is the puzzle. Still no way to convince me that Virginia Tech is worthy of the game they are in. Kansas State and Boise State were far more worthy of at large bids than the Hokies.

They definitely did for #1 and highly likely for #2, the rest is the puzzle. Still no way to convince me that Virginia Tech is worthy of the game they are in. Kansas State and Boise State were far more worthy of at large bids than the Hokies.

 

:thumb: That's how I feel. No way should the ACC have gotten 2 teams in the BCS. Virginia Tech had no quality wins, and got hammered twice by the only team halfway decent they played. Just proves its all about money, as if we didn't already know that. I don't see how you could put them in over either of the teams you mentioned. Heck, TCU deserved it more than they did. Atleast they had 1 really good win. Halfway makes my stomach churn the way some teams get hoses the way they do. I HATE the BCS.