- 12/07/2010, 09:52PM ET
YODA said 12/07, 09:52 PM
Good luck (Un) and Hyped. My partner (Grue) did most of the heavy-lifting for this TD.
We want playoffs, damn it.
But despite the yearly outcry from fans, the draconian BCS system remains. Playoffs are seen as a direct threat to the massively profitable oligopoly. Frontal attacks on the system continue to fail. We therefore offer a "win-win" plan that can be piggy-backed onto the current system.
1. Keep the 4 major BCS bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta). The 100+ yr tradition can't be minimized. But now, these 8 teams form a playoff tourney.
2. Have 5 traditional auto tie-ins plus 3 at-large bids. In arg 2, I'll go into the the advantages of this tweaked selection process.
3. Insert a Semi-Finals between the 4 Major Bowls and the BCS Natl Championship Game.
Fans now have 2 huge games to look forward to. Plus, it eliminates the current ratings failure matchup between the 9th and 10th ranked teams.
4. The BCS Championship Game becomes your Playoff Final. The polls contributed to the 8 finalists, but now the champ is decided here on the field.
Our plan is realistic, simple to implement, and financially viable.
(Un) said 12/08, 08:43 PM
Thank you and good luck!
We've seen many rational and seemingly financially feasible options proposed. And your plan could easily be categorized alongside them. The problem is - and you've already used the word here - they are not "realistic".
The BCS has already warned us that if forced to scrap the current system, they'd go back to the old bowl system rather than move to a playoff format. You can't reason with those who don't wish to negotiate. And the BCS is clearly not interested in bargaining.
So keeping in mind that this all fairy-tale, playoffs in general are not a "realistic" option. So why hold back? Why attempt to appease the BCS when they refuse to be appeased?
Here is our proposal
- 16 Team Single-Elimination Bracket
- Seeds go to the 16 highest ranked schools
- NO Automatic-Qualifiers
- Scrap the 4 major BCS bowls (details later)
Why a 16 Team Bracket?
The largest criticism pinned against the current BCS system is inequality among conferences. This 16-team bracket is large enough to represent all the conferences (in a need-be scenario), yet not explicitly held to do so.
YODA said 12/09, 01:19 AM
We don't agree that this TD is "all fairy-tale".
Our side brings the BCS to the bargaining table because our proposal builds upon the existing bowl system. Our plan is realistic for study and implementation.
Yes, the BCS won't deal with anyone intending to "scrap" the system. And your 16 game seeded playoff is their worst nightmare. 15 playoff games really takes the focus away from other Bowls, sponsors, and communities.
It also creates pointless match-ups (1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15...) that don't help anyone involved.
Here's the 2010 example for how our selection process works:
The top 5 Conference Champs plus 3 At-Large bids make up the participants.
The historical bowl tie-ins stay in place where applicable.
Rose: 2 Oregon (PAC 10 Champ) vs 5 Wiscon (Big 10 Chmp)
Fiesta: 7 Okla (Big 12 Chmp) vs 4 Stanf (At-Large #1)
Sugar: 1 Auburn (SEC Chmp) vs 8. Arkans (AL #3)
Orange: 3 TCU (MWC) vs OSU (AL #2)
Rose winner vs Fiesta
Sugar vs Orange
(Venue goes back and forth each yr.)
West vs East
(Un) said 12/09, 11:46 PM
As the BCS Commissioners warned (link) today, they will not budge any further. So yes, this is all fantasy.
1. What happens if the nation's top ranked team holds a two-game conference lead going into their final game? Where's the incentive to give their all?
2. What happens in a season when there are not at least 5 Conference Champs within the Top 8 teams? Criticism starts buzzing... again
When BCS critics talk playoffs they aren't seeking a compromise. They're looking at the FCS (I-AA), D-II, D-III, etc. They're saying those guys run a playoff, why can't the FBS?
That's exactly what this is. Since 1986 the FCS has held a 16-team playoff (expanded to 20 teams in 2010). Our key difference is the elimination of AQs. We removed AQs for the same reason we stretched out to a 16-team tournament, equality is the only way to quiet BCS critics.
Under our proposal only the National Championship Game will be played at a neutral site. All other games will be played on campus, with home field advantage going to the higher seeded team (aka incentive to win every week).
YODA said 12/10, 01:58 AM
Still "all fantasy"?
Your link is just a red herring. Obviously the BCS will push back when they feel threatened. But that article really only suggests that your FBS format type will continue to hit roadblocks. It doesn't address our hyprid proposal that seeks to work with the powers that be.
The critiques you made of our plan seem quite minor (a couple of "what ifs"). Do you really foresee teams half-assing a game? I would hope not, Un. Besides, under any format, there will always be some "buzzing"(alma mater biases, distrust in the polls/rankings, etc.). Our plan is a nice step in the right direction.
Your proposal is doomed from the get-go. It seeks to throw out the establishment at a time when they're both powerful and profitable.
Your plan threatens the size of the BCS/NCAAF pie and doesn't do enough in return to enrich the fan experience. The pointless 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc QF games (in addition to the loss of the all the other bowl games) hurt. And with just one single game booked in advance, scheduling and student travel become nightmares.
Thanks again, Grue (NCAAF Guru)
And thanks, Rudedog (Tourney Host)
(Un) said 12/10, 07:15 AM
No, the BCS Commissioners have stated repeatedly that if forced out of the current BCS system they will revert back to the old bowl system. They have stated repeatedly that playoffs never have been and never will be an option.
The scheduling, the student travel, etc. Guess what... every other division of college does it. Many of which have finer academic institutions (Ivy League schools for instance). It's a lot more feasible than the BCS would like you to believe. Heck, they do one game playoff notice in the NFL. You think it's hurting profits? That's absurd to even suggest.
What would happen if the BCS ran Men's College Basketball? We'll guarantee you that Butler University would not have been playing for the national title back in April... the most watched title game in over a decade. People won't tune in to watch the little guy attempt the upset? Balderdash. Put something on the line other than dollars (like playoff advancement) and they will.
If you're a fan of a powerhouse conference, you have nothing to worry about. For example, the SEC currently has four teams ranked in the top 16... more than any other conference.
|2||7#bag _ Com||1098||333||88||75.2%|
|5||Dyhard is a certified stoner||54||25||3||67.7%|
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia