Quote: Originally Posted By Iguana1 on 12/07/2009
Easy on paper; next to impossible to hold together in real life.

Getting the BCS conferences to agree to the current system took years. All it takes is one season like the Big 12 South last year, where #3 Texas loses the division tie-breaker to Oklahoma and Texas Tech and the Longhorns have no bowl game to play.

Under that type of scenario it's very plausible that the Big Ten and Pac 10 pullout of the new playoffs and go back to playing their own Rose Bowl.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 12/07/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tgould02 on 12/07/2009

I honestly can't see how anybody can think a single elimination playoff decides a "true" champion. It absolutely does not, and there is just no way anybody can convince me other wise. At the end of an NBA, MLB or NHL season there is no debate at all over who is the best team because teams had to win 7 game series' to decide. The % of the time the better team wins a 7 game series is huge. Like I said before, single elimination playoffs do not do a good job of deciding a true champion because anybody can win in a 1 game scenario.

Let's say UNC threw up a stinker in the Sweet 16 last season would that have changed the fact that they were actually the best team in college basketball? Definitely not. Do you really think the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers were the 2 best teams in the NFL last season? The season before that were the Giants really better than the Patriots? Now if you look at the sports that have series to decide things, there is no argument that can be made for any other team besides the team that won.

An 8 team playoff would solve nothing because at the end of the season there will almost always be some 1 loss non BCS school that looks really good who ends up ranked in the 9-12 slot and everyone will be saying it's a shame they didn't get a chance.

Yeah but in a playoff format (8 or 16, preferably 16) it would be harder for the team that beat the "better team having the stinker night" to continue their hotstreak and just flatout frun the table. The playoff would rely on great coaching and great depth to win a championship.

That's not really my point. What I'm saying is if the clear cut best team has 1 bad game they're season is done in a 1 game playoff. The team that beat them may not go on to win, but the best team still won't win a championship. This is going back a long way but in 91, I think it was when Duke beat UNLV in the Final 4 everybody knew UNLV was actually the better team but in that 1 game scenario Duke had a chance. Had that been a 7 game series UNLV wins 4-1 or 4-2. Single game playoffs due a great job of creating excitement and letting fans think a "true" champion is crowned but it really does no better job than the BCS system in deciding a "true" champion.

I think there is an important distinction between crowning "The Best Team" and a National Champion. The system we have now attempts to rank teams in order of their worth and decide who the "Best" teams are and should get the chance to play to be the best team. Despite all of the formulas, it is still very subjective due to the fact that polls are involved.

If you go to a playoff, all of a sudden, you are the "National Champion". You may not be the best team, but you earned the right to call yourself a champion by winning a series of single elimination game.

Football is one of those sports where it is almost always going to be impossible to determine the "best" team at any level of competition due to the nature of the game, and 7-game series being impossibe, so let's not pretend that a formula based system does that for us. Instead, it's better (IMO obviously) to set up a system where more than two teams have the ability to call themselves a champion, and polls and formulas dont have a say (to an extent, no matter how big the tournament is, there is always some form of objectivity to determine the cutoff). That is where an 8 team tournament is perfect though, win all of your games, and you are guaranteed to be one of the best 8 teams, lose a game and leave it to chance that you are out. Under no circumstances should a team be able to win ALL of their games (including the bowl game) and not be able to call themselves Champion

Quote: Originally Posted By jaisonline on 12/07/2009ideally, an 8 game playoff would be better than 4. however, the schools & the NCAA would NEVER shorten regular season games; there's too much guaranteed $ at stake. additionally, the NCAA doesn't want their schedule to conflict w/ the NFL.

Quote: Originally Posted By jaisonline on 12/07/2009ideally, an 8 game playoff would be better than 4. however, the schools & the NCAA would NEVER shorten regular season games; there's too much guaranteed $ at stake. additionally, the NCAA doesn't want their schedule to conflict w/ the NFL

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 12/07/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By jaisonline on 12/07/2009
ideally, an 8 game playoff would be better than 4. however, the schools & the NCAA would NEVER shorten regular season games; there's too much guaranteed $ at stake. additionally, the NCAA doesn't want their schedule to conflict w/ the NFL.

All myths. Specifically, the money and schedule portion. A 8-team playoff would generate far more money than the current system, it would also make ALL the conference championship games that much more relevant. Because you are getting the Big 6 a guaranteed spot each and because those conferences pool their bowl game money together, the money lost on one regular season game against a nobody would be more than madeup for. Also, if they did the first round the week after the conference title (which is week 14 of the NFL season) and the 2nd round during the regular bowl season. The National Championship game would be pushed one week later. They can hold it on a Monday night like they do now and it wouldnt compete with the NFL playoffs.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 12/07/2009
The reason they would lose money is because the sheer amount of bowl games. If you introduce a playoff system all the bowls would be abolished. there are 34 bowl games. Meaning there are 68 teams that play an extra game and therefore earn money for their school and conference. There is just no way you can say an 8 team playoff where 7 games are played would somehow generate more money than 34 games.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/07/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 12/07/2009
The reason they would lose money is because the sheer amount of bowl games. If you introduce a playoff system all the bowls would be abolished. there are 34 bowl games. Meaning there are 68 teams that play an extra game and therefore earn money for their school and conference. There is just no way you can say an 8 team playoff where 7 games are played would somehow generate more money than 34 games.

Good lord some of you should take jobs with the BCS PR department. Why would all the bowl games be abolished? They would still be played just like the PIT is played in basketball. No one cares about these bowl games now nor would they then. They are played for money. People watch them because they went to the schools, bet on the games, or nothing else is on TV. The playoff would not interfere with the schedule and the same people that watch them now would watch them then.