A way to have a playoff system AND bowl games. | Page 2 | TigerFan.com

lsu-i-like · Dec 5, 2006

1 01 Ohio St
2 02 Michigan
3 03 Florida
4 05 USC
5 06 Louisville
6 08 Boise St

LSU gets left out, but we weren't in the top 2 and we didn't win our conference. I'm assuming here that Florida is rated #2 only because the pollsters knew that leaving Florida out was worse than leaving Michigan out. If not, Michigan would be out too.

LSU and Wisconsin would be a little upset, but neither was a conference champ.

2005
1 01 USC
2 02 Texas
3 03 Penn St
4 06 Notre Dame

My playoff scenerio would look different in 2005. Ohio St and Oregon would be in the position LSU and Wisconsin are in this year. Conference champion Georgia would be left out only because they are ranked 7th. Georgia would be upset, but I wouldn't say they had a NC caliber year. The BCS rankings could probably use tweaking, but that's what I came up with in 2005.

The timeframe of the playoffs:
round 1 = week after conference championships
round 2 = ~ christmas
round 3 = ~ weekend after new year

Nutriaitch · Dec 5, 2006

psulions2007 said: ↑

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

When did NFL teams start playing 31 game schedules?

Nutriaitch · Dec 5, 2006

fanatic said: ↑

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.

Why won't this work?
Click to expand...

One controversy could come about because of the BCS rules. For example, only 2 teams from any one conference can go to BCS bowls in any given year. This year, Wisconsin is probably more deserving than Notre Damnit.
They have only 1 loss, and that was by 14 pts @ Michigan. Compared to ND getting Blown out twice. Also, this year Auburn may be more deserving as well. But neither is elligible because their repective conferences already have 2 teams in.

Nutriaitch · Dec 5, 2006

psulions2007 said: ↑

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

Link to previous Thread

First the re-alignment

Originally Posted by Nutriaitch
I have been working on this for quite some time. I can get the rest of the BCS conferences to 12 teams rather easily.

Big 11 Ten
Add either Marshal, Bowling Green, or Miami (OH)
Not Notre Dame, the Big east needs them

Big East
Add ND, Army, Navy, and Marshall (if they don't go to Big Ten) or Memphis

PAC-10
The easy answer is Boise and Fresno. My only problem with that is that you completely rob any dignity from the WAC if that happens.
I would prefer to add
San Jose St. and San Diego St.

Now you take the most consistent 12 teams (attendance,winning %) remaining from the MWC and Wac, to form a new conference. Use the remaining teams to fill in the Sun Belt, and to replace teams taken from C-USA.
Click to expand...

Then the playoff Plan

Originally Posted by Nutriaitch
I don't want ANY VOTES cast for ANYONE. I want this settled on the phucking field. Nobody is "selected" to play in my playoff situation. You earn it on the field, period.
Couple of rulesc

All conferences get equal billing (which is why I gave so much weight to strength of teams involved in re-alignment)

every team plays exact same number of regular season games (12 works best for me). That's it, no more, no less.

all conferences will play 8 conference games, and 4 non-conference games (against only D-1A). I'm a big fan of the way the SEC does their conference scheduling. This schedule will help keep the big rivalries from no-conference opponents (ND/USC, Fla/FlaSt, UGA/GT, etc.)

all conferences will have a championship game (all played on the same weekend)

A true strength of schedule will be used to determine seeding. I have set up a points system to determine.(*** see below)

Next, the country will be divided into to "divisions" (similar to AFC/NFC) separating conferences geographically. 4 conferences per "division". 4 champs from each division have a playoff using the seeding determined by strength of schedule. After that, the 2 "division" champs meet in a True title game.

*** (points system mentioned above)

1-pt for a win at home to a team with worse record than you

2-pt for a win on the road to a team with worse record than you or at home to a team with better record than you.

3-pt for a win on the road to a team with a better record than you.

0-pt for a raod loss to a team with a better record than you

(-1) pt home loss to a team with a better record than you or road loss to a team with worse record

(-2) pt for a home loss to a team with a worse record than you

Click to expand...

LSUTyga73 · Dec 6, 2006

Thats a lot of games to be played, Florida would have had to play 17 games to win the national championship, going 16-1.
To go along with the idea of HittinZX2, I like the idea of every conference having a championship game, regardless of whether they have 12 teams. Then setting up a playoff with all the conference champions. Yes, even the mid-majors, but only if they are ranked say in the top 20 or so. This way insures that only conference champs can be national champs. Its got some flaws, but seems like a good idea, just throwin it out there.

BostonBengal · Dec 6, 2006

psulions2007 said: ↑

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?
Click to expand...

The BCS added a 5th game without using up a current bowl to do it. Since the BCS title game (sponsored by the Fiesta Bowl this year) is a week after the regular Fiesta Bowl (OU vs BSU), why couldn't the BCS AT LEAST take:

#1 Ohio State vs #4 LSU say in the Rose Bowl
#2 Florida vs #3 Michigan say in the Sugar Bowl

and then the winners of those two games plays in the BCS title game???

The BCS added another game, but they didn't do anything to solve their problem.