Thread: Thinking up a college football playoff system

"Crunchem" wrote:

Why not have a playoff situation....all the teams are D-1....I really hate the bowl system...yeah great for some teams but really what have u won if u get the crab apple bowl!....they would need to drag out the season but it would be a win win situation for most of the teams

See, this si what I hate most about the BCS. There are only 10 (out of 250?) or so teams who are thinking "Championship are bust." every year. The majority of schools are thrilled to have a 2 or 3 loss season and go to a bowl game.

I mean, look at where West Virginia has come from. Their fans should be estactic that their program has arisen from the depths, not angry that they won't play in a championship game if they lose to Pitt. Same with Missouri, Kansas, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Illinois, Arizona State, Clemson, etc.

The BCS destroys all the joy that teams 3-10 should be having in lieu of their damn good year. The bowl system is great IMO, but the national championship ruins everything. Nobody cares about teams like BYU, or Arizona State, or South Florida or even Kansas anymore because they aren't in the title hunt.

Basically, the BCS says, "only these 5 games matter, screw the rest."

Your team can have a great year and still not make the BCS.
Fans have trouble understanding that.

"V" wrote:

"Crunchem" wrote:

Why not have a playoff situation....all the teams are D-1....I really hate the bowl system...yeah great for some teams but really what have u won if u get the crab apple bowl!....they would need to drag out the season but it would be a win win situation for most of the teams

See, this si what I hate most about the BCS. There are only 10 (out of 250?) or so teams who are thinking "Championship are bust." every year. The majority of schools are thrilled to have a 2 or 3 loss season and go to a bowl game.

I mean, look at where West Virginia has come from. Their fans should be estactic that their program has arisen from the depths, not angry that they won't play in a championship game if they lose to Pitt. Same with Missouri, Kansas, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Illinois, Arizona State, Clemson, etc.

The BCS destroys all the joy that teams 3-10 should be having in lieu of their damn good year. The bowl system is great IMO, but the national championship ruins everything. Nobody cares about teams like BYU, or Arizona State, or South Florida or even Kansas anymore because they aren't in the title hunt.

Basically, the BCS says, "only these 5 games matter, screw the rest."

Your team can have a great year and still not make the BCS.
Fans have trouble understanding that.

Cheers to that.

I think it needs to be 32 team instead of 16.

I think 32 would be too many...the biggest argument I've heard from the Good Ole Boys down south who who put this BS together, is that playoffs would extend the college football season too much, detracting from the student's education...(or something like that.)

As an easy, simple solution...take the top eight teams in the BCS standings, and have a 3 week playoff with normal seeding (first vs. worst).
If your college isn't in the Elite Eight, it probably doesn't deserve a shot at the title.


The games would be huge for advertising and attention (probably $$$$) for your school, just look at what March Madness does.

"mountainviking" wrote:

I think 32 would be too many...the biggest argument I've heard from the Good Ole Boys down south who who put this BS together, is that playoffs would extend the college football season too much, detracting from the student's education...(or something like that.)

As an easy, simple solution...take the top eight teams in the BCS standings, and have a 3 week playoff with normal seeding (first vs. worst).
If your college isn't in the Elite Eight, it probably doesn't deserve a shot at the title.


The games would be huge for advertising and attention (probably $$$$) for your school, just look at what March Madness does.

All you would need is aobut 5 more weeks but I understand the education part. The only thing the gets me is that when I was in College I knew a lot of basketball players and they got it pretty easy. I think 8 might be too small. IMO a lot of the teams in the 15 deserve a shot or even top 25.

32 teams means a 13 game season at least, 17 game season at most. Too long.

Playoffs though would also eliminate the need for so many out of conference games. The big teams won't need as many easy wins, and the lesser teams won't need as many big profile games.

So cut out-of conference games to three max and start the playoffs 3 weeks earlier. That means the championship would still be at the same time.

32 would be fun, but I think it's too many and a logistical nightmare. Let's start with 8 and work our way up from there. It's tough to have 5 games of playoffs after only a 12 game season.

"marstc09" wrote:

"mountainviking" wrote:

I think 32 would be too many...the biggest argument I've heard from the Good Ole Boys down south who who put this BS together, is that playoffs would extend the college football season too much, detracting from the student's education...(or something like that.)

As an easy, simple solution...take the top eight teams in the BCS standings, and have a 3 week playoff with normal seeding (first vs. worst).
If your college isn't in the Elite Eight, it probably doesn't deserve a shot at the title.


The games would be huge for advertising and attention (probably $$$$) for your school, just look at what March Madness does.

All you would need is aobut 5 more weeks but I understand the education part. The only thing the gets me is that when I was in College I knew a lot of basketball players and they got it pretty easy. I think 8 might be too small. IMO a lot of the teams in the 15 deserve a shot or even top 25.

16 teams with the seeding would take 4 weeks, that really is not that long. i really think our football players could have handled 4 more, and we are D-3 so there is no scholarships for football and easy grade schemes or anything like that.