A way to have a playoff system AND bowl games.

I don't know why no one thinks of this stuff.

First, the top 16 teams in the BCS standings...no strings attached, go to the playoff with the remaining teams subjugated to lesser bowl games.

Here is how this would work:
(Dates use this year as an example)

First Round- December 9, 2006

A. 01 v. 16
B. 08 v. 09
C. 05 v. 12
D. 04 v. 13
E. 06 v. 11
F. 03 v. 14
G. 07 v. 10
H. 02 v. 15

Second Round- December 16, 2006

I. A v. B
II. C v. D
III. E v. F
IV. G v. H

Semifinals- December 30, 2006

SA. I v. II
SB. III v. IV

BCS Playoff National Championship Game: January 15, 2007

SA v. SB

So where do the losers go?

In the current setup:

(January 12, 2007) Tournament of Roses: Pac 10 Champ v. Big Ten Champ
(January 13, 2007)Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ v. ?
(January 12, 2007)Fiesta Bowl: Big XII Champ v. ?
(January 13, 2007)Orange Bowl: ACC Champ v. ?

Can still happen provided: A. These conference champions were in the 16-team playoff and B. These conference champions are not in the BCSPNCG.

The ? spots, as well as the spots relinquished by conference champions in the BCSPNCG, will be filled by the teams which, first, lost SA and SB, and second, by the losers of I, II, III, and IV. This guarantees spots for the losers of SA and SB. The losers of I, II, III, and IV will gain an at-large berth if they have a higher ranking than the rest of the losers of the same bracket, in order, until the BCS games are filled.


The remaining teams will be divided among second-tier bowls with these bowls being pushed up a week. Any teams left over from the losers of I, II, III, and IV who did not qualify for a BCS berth will have their bowl game played on the Monday night prior to BCS Weekend (and 1 week before the BCSPNCG).







Thoughts?

 

BTW, I don't like the dates either, and there is the possibility that the NCAA could force conferences to not allow any games played on the weekend of December 2, and to start the playoff there.

That would mean:

Round 1- December 2
Round 2- December 9
Semifinals- December 16

Rose Bowl- January 1
Sugar Bowl- January 3
Fiesta Bowl- January 1
Orange Bowl- January 2
BCSPNCG- January 8

 

16 teams is probably too many, more than 2 bowl games in a row stresses attendance figures because of travel for fanbase, the secondary bowls should be able to exist outside the playoff considering none have anything to do with the NC already and if LSU were going to one of the secondary bowls, we'd still follow our team.

Anything is better than what we have, but if we over compensate teams the regular season starts losing meaning and we could throw things awry on the other end of the spectrum.

 

You don't need 16, but you at least need eight... as no BCS conference is going to approve a playoff that doesn't include their conference champion... then there's the Notre Dame factor.
Also, at least according to Frank Broyles, the first round would have to be a home game for the top four teams to account for fan travel and expense... so only the semis and the final would be neutral.
Yes, it could be done... but if anyone thinks it would stop the complaining, they're nuts.
"Why did we get matched with so-and-so?"
"It's unfair we had to go up north to play a game in December."
"Our QB got hurt in the first game and that's why we lost in the Semis."

You get my drift.:shock:

 

First off, let me say I like your enthusiasm. But the above is one enormous problem with your plan. Someone else on this board and I had this very debate last week, I'll try to find that thread for you.
Any system that allows human/computer opinion decide who is worhty is a flawed system. We need some system that allows for it to be settled on the field and on the field only. If not, the media will still be able to bias who gets in and who gets left out. Also, a team could still get shafted because they were predicted pre-season not to go, and had to fight their way upwards.

 

Here's the link to the thread I mentioned. Click Here!

 

Well then it is quite impossible to have a seeded playoff system unless all Div I-A teams play each other which is lunacy.

Here is how the proposed playoff system would have worked with estimated winners in bold.

First Round- December 02, 2006 (Winners in Bold)

A. Ohio State v. Rutgers

B. Boise State v. Auburn

C. USC v. Arkansas

D. LSU v. West Virginia

E. Louisville v. Notre Dame

F. Michigan v. Wake Forest

G. Wisconsin v. Oklahoma

H. Florida v. Virginia Tech

(Yeah, the only three games I could see going either way are B, G, and H.)


Second Round- December 9, 2006

I. Ohio State v. Boise State

II. USC v. LSU

III. Louisville v. Michigan

IV. Oklahoma v. Virginia Tech

I'll post more thoughts later

 

I'm acknowledging ahead of time that I've posted this same opinion in other threads, so if you've read it before, bare with me.

The best way to have a playoff, maintain the current bowl system, and have the regular season still mean something is: take the 4 winners of the BCS bowls and put them into a 2 game playoff. The solution seems so simple, I'm obviously overlooking a major flaw in this line of thinking, but I can't find fault.

I realize there would still be some controversy over the at-large bids, but with the BCS conference champions receiving automatic bids, it would be right more often than not and the NC gets decided on the field by only adding 2 games to the schedule of 4 teams. Why won't this work?

 

What about just making every conference have a championship game and then do a 4 team playoff. I think with adding a playoff we'd have to go back to and eleven game season.

 

Here's a plan I heard one of the talking heads propose:

This weekend (i.e. the weekend after the final regular season BCS rankings are announced) #1 would play #4 and #2 would play #3. You could flip flop the location each year. The winners would play in the national championship game as scheduled, the losers would go to the BCS bowls. The remaining spots in the BCS bowls would be chosen from #5 on down.

IMHO, too many more games will wear the players down, I believe there is a quote from Glen Dorsey to that affect in today's Advocate. You aren't going to ever satisfy everyone and there will ALWAYS be teams on the outside arguing that they should have been in. I like the above proposal.