Actually I like this idea, it occurred to me that conf champs would almost always be in BSC bowls anyway even if they didn't automatically get in (exception might be Pitt in '05 at 8-3 lol). However I think it would be better to just have four teams in the playoff, and the other four teams would just play their bowl games as the finish to their season. For instance, last year could have gone something like this:

USC vs OSU (winner advances)
LSU vs OU (winner advances)
VT vs WV
Georgiea vs Kansas

And SEC should change tiebreaker from H2H to overall record, cause Georgia was obv a better team overall then Tennessee even though Georgia lost to them early in the season. Then Georgia at least gets a fair shot vs LSU. The other three "bottom tier" teams each lost a pivotal game to legitimately remove them from title contention.

Me and you more or less have the same line of thinking micro bob. One area I do disagree with is making every conference have a conference championship game. I don't think that conferences that have a full round robin i.e Pac10 and Big East need a conference championship game.

Why is that necessarily the case?

All you are proposing is that the conference determine a representative for a post season tournament. The regular season title could do the job.

The Big East, ACC, Big10, Pac, SEC and Big XII champions all receive automatic bids to the BCS bowl games. I honestly do not see any playoff system where all 6 BCS conference champs are not involved. They all are going to want the same access. They aren't going to approve something where 4 get in but the other 2 don't.

No the SEC should not change their tiebreaking system to best overall record. Tennessee had the same conference record as Georgia and they beat Georgia head-to-head. When deciding who plays in a conference championship game the only that should matter is what you did in your conference. Georgia had their fair shot at LSU and they blew it. Their fair shot was to win their division and they didn't do it.

Almost positive I didn't say what was is in the post you quoted with my name.

My bad.

Had multiquoted a post of yours earlier, but only really replied to MicroBob's post.

No problem.

Oaky, if everyone wants something reasonable, I think a 16 team playoff with all 11 conference champions automatically qualifying would be best. This is similar to what is done in divisisons 1-aa, 2, and 3, and it works quite well for them.

16 is too much, 8 would probably cover even the most ******ed scenarios.

I'm personally against any playoff with more than 8 teams.

I think that would be best also but highly unlikely. However if an 8 team playoff ever gets implemented then a 16 team playoff wouldn't be far around the corner from that. This is the reason why the college presidents and conference commissoners continue to vote against a +1 or any other format that even vaguely resembles a playoff. Once you start a small playoff it will undoubtedly get bigger. People wil see that 4 or teams isn't much better than 2 and 8 is a little better than 4 but you are still leaving out teams with like accomplishments. With 16 you have the opportunity to include all 11 conference champions in the bowl sub-division.

To me, a championship needs to be earned on the field, and a playoff would bring the teams together that earned the right to play for one.

The problem with the BCS system right now is the top teams don't play each other during the regular season outside of conference play.That makes it hard to pick just 2 out of 119 to be in the championship game.

Another reason I dislike the BCS is that it has killed interest in the bowl system. Except for the championship game, the other bowls have been reduced to exhibitions that are only interesting to the fans of the teams in those games. Before the BCS, teams in the major bowls still had a shot at the national title. More fans outside of the two teams playing had a rooting interest in the outcome.

Either go back to the old system of conference tie-ins, or do a playoff. This in-between crap of the BCS is worse than either of those options.

Putting conference champs in the playoff might also have an effect on who teams schedule out of conference. Teams might be more inclined to schedule tougher OOC games to prepare for the conference season since a loss in one of those games wouldn't count towards a conference championship.

I like the way you think sir.

I'm kind of against an 8-team playoff. It really cheapens the two weeks of the regular season for the top teams. A four team playoff is good because you still retain the feeling that everything is on the line each week. The plus-one system is good, but the matchups shouldn't be determined by computer formulas or rankings, rather by the media and selection committee. Last year I think USC vs OSU and LSU vs OU would have been the consensus for playoff matchups, the top four conference winners.

How can you so easily distinguish 4 of the BCS conference champions from the other two? The only thing you can say about the 6 teams at the end of the regular season was that LSU was better than Virginia Tech because they actually had a head-to-head matchup. You have 6 teams and 1 game played between the 6 that's not enough information to start making any definitive claims about who's better. How 'bout we not guess and just have them all play in a competition together? Lets not also forget that OU got crushed by West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl. So again, we never know until the games are actually played.

Winnar

Yeah I always thought if they weren't going to have a playoff then just go back to the traditional tie-ins.

Or teams could end up scheduling worse OOC competition as their kind of 'exhibition' games before the important conference stuff starts. Because they don't have to worry about strength of schedule anymore and stuff like that. And they don't want to beat themselves up in some really physical and difficult OSU vs. Texas type battle that ends up leaving them bruised and battered for the upcoming conference games.

You don't see NFL teams taking their exhibitions THAT seriously. And I think the same might end up being true for OOC stuff.

Yeah, I guess so.
Except in the Big10 you can end up with 2 undefeated teams in the conference who didn't meet in the regular season.

I was just envisioning a scenario I guess where the conference championship game essentially IS the start of the tournament so really the top 2 teams from each conference [or division winners or whatever] enter he qualifying phase.
SEC - LSU vs. Tenn
Big10 - OSU vs. Wisconsin
PAC - USC vs. ASU
etc etc

If you have the 6 BCS conference-championship teams advance then you are essentially starting with a 12 team tournament.
The losers of the conf-championships go running off to whatever consolation bowl-game they would have ended up going to anyway.
The top two out of the top 6 get a first-round bye perhaps.

OR....you have room for 2 non-BCS at-large bids via committee decision for an 8-team tourney and the top 2 seeds will possibly have the occasional first-round cakewalk as a result.

Or you set it up for the top BCS seeds to get a first round bye and invite the MAC, MWC, WAC, CUSA and Sun Belt conference championship winners.
You have 11 teams total.
Top 5 BCS teams get a bye. The 6th seed BCS team has to play in the first round.
The first-round would be 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9.
After the 3 winners advance you now have 8 teams so you're all set.

If I had the power of God destroying the BCS would be one of the first things I would do.

It is easy to defeat anyone who tries to defend it or echoes the sentiment that it would make the regular season less exciting.

Simply ask them if they think the NFL should poll to determine the playoffs teams and then the top two play in the super bowl. Nobody would agree to that because it is insane, just like the fraud that is the BCS.

There is a lot more parity in the NFL than in college. Also, the NFL regular season is a bore. I think that Wildcards should be removed from the NFL playoffs. Win your division and you are in.

I don't think I'm insane.

Hahaha. Teams can "end up doing that?" You act as if they aren't doing that now. Look at Ohio State's OOC schedule from last year. They played no one OOC and managed to get to the BCS Title game. You don't have to schedule a strong OOC to make it to the BCS Title game that's why there is no big advantage scheduling them in the eyes of some programs. Mack Brown said after the Ohio State series that he doubts that they'll have a series like that with a high profile team any time soon because...

A) you can lose a game and severely hurt your shots at the BCS Championship game

B) all the series are home and home. So every other year Texas loses the opportunity to have an additioinal home game where they could've scheduled some directional school, made the million or whatever it is they make per home game and not risk a strike in the L column.

You aren't insane. I've always felt that since they re-aligned to 32 teams with 8 4 team divisions that there is no need for wildcards. I think they should drop two exhibition games from the schedule. So now you would have 2 exhibition games for each team, 1 home and 1 away. You would then have 18 regular season games. With the following break down.

4 Inter Conference games (2 Home games and 2 Away games vs a division from the other conference)

6 Divisional games (Home-Home series with each team from your division)
vs a whole division from the other conference

8 Intra Conference games (4 Home games and 4 Away games vs 2 other whole divisions in your conference.

The schedule would then play out like this.

Week 1-4 Inter Conference Play

Week 5-8 First Round of Divisional Play and Byes

Week 9-16 Intra Conference Play

Week 17-19 Second Round of Division Play

Week 20 Bye Week For All Playoff Teams (Only Division Champs Make Playoffs)

Week 21 Divisional Playoff

Week 22 Conference Championships

Week 23 or 24 Super Bowl. (Depending on if you want 1 week or 2 weeks in between the last game even though I doubt they'll ever go back to the 1 week since 2 weeks gives more time to hype)