FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Let's start with the top 4 teams being seeded and basically a 4 team playoff. If that works maybe we can expand it an 8 team playoff at some point. I would not be opposed to adding a 5th BSC Bowl Game to the schedule. Since we would remove the Championship game, a 5th BCS game would keep the number of BCS teams at 10. The question is what would be the 5th BCS game. I would go with History and make the 5th BCS game the Cotton Bowl (they will have the new Dallas Stadium to play in starting in 09 or 10).

Theres a BCS Bowl in SEC country, Pac 10 country, Big 12 country, and ACC/Big East country. They should put one in the Big 10 area

Why is it when non BCS conference teams get in a BCS Bowal the payout is a fraction of what BCS schools get?

... until every conference has a playoff, why bother with a national one? Big 12 has one.. SEC has one.. Pac10, is afraid of one. And, well, Notre Dame is just simply afriad one BEING in a conference. Start at the bottom to make changes and improve parity. THEN you can talk about a national playoff.

..ps.. I really need to learn to proof-read.. duh

WE WANT A PLAYOFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not more meaningless bowl games.

The PAC 10 is not afraid of having a conference playoff, it just doesn't need to. Each team plays every other team, so essentially the whole conference season is the playoff. Teams from the Big 12 and SEC don't play every other team, because they are larger than the Pac-10. In 2008 Oklahoma will not play Missouri, unless they play in the Big 12 Championship. The point of conferences is to find the best team out of each region. Both a round robin, and a Championship game accomplish this for the most part.

UTRocket- I believe it is because the money involved. It is all about how many people come pay to watch the game, and big name schools (BCS conference schools and ND) attract more fans.

This has nothing to with ND not being in a conference, just get the the top 8 teams in a playoff and you'll get your champion!

They should jst rename this article
"LETS GIVE THEM SOMETHIN TO TALK ABOUT..."
because until they can show each entity they will improve financially with a playoff (I wholly trust they have much more info and have looked at the numbers more than any of us could hope to)
-or-
the contract runs out for all the bowls and major conferences
it will be nothing but talk.

When the opportunity comes up (after the contracts run out), you will get a plus 1. You will grow to hate it just as much.

The Big 10 will not vote for this, because that would require Ohio State to actually WIN a BCS game in order to play in the national championship, and we all know that wont happen.

Enough of the nonsense. A playoff or plus one is not needed. Stop putting the wants of ESPN and the casual fan ahead of the real fans. They would be better off addressing other issues like taking control of all officiating (especially the corrupt zebra's in the Big Ten, that is what happens when you allow a booster of one school to run the officiating and referee his alma mater), doing away with overtime and reigning in the bowl games to a reasonable number.

LSUDYNASTY - I wonder is it your lack of IQ that makes you so short sighted. Mind you, Ohio State has won 4 BCS games, including a national championship. Call it controversial if you must, but you aren't in the position to do such when your 2003 title brought just as much controversy. Anysuch, yes we've lost the last 2 title games. The 2006 game was a flop deserving of disdain, but 2007 not so much. An over-achieving (and VERY young) tOSU team who wasn't picked to be better than 3rd/4th in a down Big Ten did just the right things with the right amount of luck and made it back. LSU was the superior team - older, more mature and tested. Oh well, over it. Even though it does, these should have any affect on future teams we field, just as it didn't when Oklahoma had back-to-back flops in 2003 and 2004 - and when Florida State lost 3 of 4 title games in five years. (1996, 1998, won 1999, 2000). There was a time when the SEC wasn't highly regarded - just as the Big Ten isn't now. But do believe, all things college football are cyclical - and I can't wait until the day we can return the favor.

And INCSOC - well said. The Big Ten AND Pac10 have serious officiating "deficiencies" at the moment.

except NC, bowl games are not really about identifying the "best team" they are the _only_ time that teams who traditionally never play each other can settle the score as to which conference is better.

while Boise St. vs. Oklahoma was a good game, i'd never heard of B-St. so i read a book until the 4th quarter. i would have prefered Oklahoma play Oregon, FSU, Alabama, BC, etc. any team from power conf. with a reasonably good season.

we all agree that in 2007, had LSU played USC in the Rose Bowl, that would have gotten the same ratings as the NC. seeing USC demolish another little-10 team (again) was not really interesting. the game was over by half time.

(2008 when App-State whopped UM got whopped by App. State, that is different since that was regular season.)

"Playoffs??!!"
-Jim Mora


Screw a playoff system. USC was ranked No.7 and Ohio State was ranked No.1 before the Bowl season; should give you an idea of how inaccurate the BCS system can be when there are crazy seasons. My point is that if they implement a playoff format with two BCS bowls and a championship bowl- which, in theory, sounds awesome- then you will have even more controversial lobbying and b-ing about how "WE PLAYED A TOUGHER SCHEDULE!" or "WE"RE UNDEFEATED, AND OUR OOC SCHED WAS BETTER!!!"

Easy solution to it all: stick to a coaches poll only. I know the "computer" likes to composite a bunch of useless info that is intended to limit the power or influence of the coaches, but nobody knows more about who is actually better than the coaches themselves. You know why? Because they know each other and the players on the other teams better than the media and fans because they are the ones who tried to recruit those certain players. You just knew USC and LSU were the best two teams in the nation because of the talent and coaching.

Another thing they can do is commit to having six BCS conferences (Big East, ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, SEC and Pac-10) and demand that they all have the same number of programs. So demand that the Pac-10 adds two more teams and the Big Ten add one more team. I'd invite Boise State and Fresno State to the Pac-10 and coerce Notre Dame into the Big Ten.

Once that is settled, divide every conference into two divisions (like the SEC, Big XII...) and have them play a conference championship game. Since most twelve-team conferences play 8/12 games withing their conference, have them play two less intra-division and games and two more OOC games with other BCS programs (so that they can still keep their cupcakes on the sched and still play a good opponent). This would be like if Georgia (SEC East) didn't play Bama and Ole Miss (SEC West), but instead played Michigan and Northwestern (Big Ten East or West). Then you would have a better idea of who really was coming from a better conference because there would be more interconference play.

Why should the Big Ten,Pac-10, and Big East have to have a conference playoff like the Big 12, SEC, ACC? The Big 12, SEC, and ACC added their playoffs as an extra game about a decade ago. Conferences that have less then 12 teams can't have a conference playoff. Also, the Pac 10 plays all their opponents, there is no need for a playoff. That would mean playing the same team twice, the first game would then just be a formality. The Big East does the same. The Big Ten the schedule just rotates, you just don't play 2 teams for 2 years. Ohio State can't skip Michigan or Penn State, they play them every year, and they are usually the competing team in the Big Ten. OSU doesn't skip Wisconsin for at least 10 years or so.

And I would tell them not to go to a playoff system until we get a bowl game in Big Ten country. Otherwise, why should we bother playing in an unfair system where we have to play away game post-season games? Everyone knows even playoffs don't always give you the best team as the winner. Just look at Kansas, everyone knows UNC was better then both Kansas and Memphis in basketball this year. I want a playoff, but we should use this as leverage to get an important bowl up north, or hold out because without the Big Ten and the Pac 10 we'll have the same system as long as we want and the rest of the country can't do anything about it.

Why should the Big Ten,Pac-10, and Big East have to have a conference playoff like the Big 12, SEC, ACC? The Big 12, SEC, and ACC added their playoffs as an extra game about a decade ago. Conferences that have less then 12 teams can't have a conference playoff. Also, the Pac 10 plays all their opponents, there is no need for a playoff. That would mean playing the same team twice, the first game would then just be a formality. The Big East does the same. The Big Ten the schedule just rotates, you just don't play 2 teams for 2 years. Ohio State can't skip Michigan or Penn State, they play them every year, and they are usually the competing team in the Big Ten. OSU doesn't skip Wisconsin for at least 10 years or so.

And I would tell them not to go to a playoff system until we get a bowl game in Big Ten country. Otherwise, why should we bother playing in an unfair system where we have to play away game post-season games? Everyone knows even playoffs don't always give you the best team as the winner. Just look at Kansas, everyone knows UNC was better then both Kansas and Memphis in basketball this year. I want a playoff, but we should use this as leverage to get an important bowl up north, or hold out because without the Big Ten and the Pac 10 we'll have the same system as long as we want and the rest of the country can't do anything about it.