Going back to 2003, here is what a 4 team playoff would have looked like. I am assuming a 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 setup. #1 would have "earned" the right to play #4 because of their higher ranking. 2003: #1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs #4 Michigan (10-2) #2 LSU 12-1 vs #3 USC 11-1 2004: #1 USC vs #4 Utah #2 Oklahoma vs #3 Auburn 2005: #1 USC vs #4 Ohio State #2 Texas vs #3 Penn State 2006: #1 Ohio State vs #4 LSU #2 Florida vs #3 Michigan I don't know any college football fan who wouldn't LOVE to see this situation. I cannot see the validity of a team ranked number 5 complaining that they got shafted. Hey, you are number 5 for a reason you don't deserve to be in. #5 could play the top team from a non BCS conference in one of the bowl rotations. Maybe like this First year: Fiesta Bowl: #5 vs top non BCS Sugar Bowl: #2 vs #3 Orange Bowl: #1 vs #4 Rose Bowl: NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
Hmmm, I'm not sure advertisers would agree.... those are both base markets, using media terminology. Florida/tOSU and USC/Texas both topped the 21 share of audience number. The LSU/Oklahoma game hit a 14.5 share. In comparison, the Rose Bowl game that same January between Michigan and USC drew 14.4 share. Here's a link to who watches what come bowl time. http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/tvratings The chances of SoFla/BC happening are slim indeed, but it would draw more interest than Oregon/Oklahoma, for example.
Ok, I get it. The problems as I see them: - The BCS bowls won't like being the first round of the playoff (festivities will be seriously damaged, not being the climax of the season will bug them) - Fans won't travel for three straight rounds to bowl sites. - More often than not, significantly less than 8 teams deserve to play for a NC. - As far as whether there should be a universal conference championship (or no conference championship), it sounds good, but I don't think that needs to be tied into an argument for a playoff. Some conferences are in love with the idea, some conferences hate the idea. Adding that controversy to a call for a playoff just weakens the position of those pro-playoff.
With LSU/OU and the split NC, you can argue that a significant part of the population (i.e., southern California) had already crowned their NC and didn't care about the BCSNC (at least as far as Pete Carroll was concerned). When moving away from the BCS, I don't think that (initially) a major overhaul in the current bowl system is needed. A BCS-like ranking system seeding the top 4 and a 2-round playoff would essentially guarantee that no undefeated team from a major conference would be left out of the NC picture. That would be the easiest short-term solution since we probably won't get rid of the traditional bowls and conference champion$hip games anytime soon.
NFL-lite? Tradition is a part of college football. NonBCS teams are the biggest loser when using only 4 teams, especially considering the parity that is creeping into college football. It is also possible, though not likely, that the the top 6 teams could be BCS teams each from different conferences, with similar résumés. The reason the BCS is the cause of unrest is because possible conflagrations weren't considered ahead of time.
I can argue the case the #5 team complaining quite easily. Look at '06 You're letting in a 2 loss team (LSU) and leaving out 2 one loss teams (Louisville, Wisconsin). You're letting in 2 Non-conference champs and leaving out conf. champs with as good/better records (Louisville, OU, Wake, USC). Of course, we already know the results of the bowls from that year, which will skew our opinions. But Why does LSU get in (lost to #2 Florida, and #10 Auburn), but Wisconsin (only lost to # 3 Michigan) stays home? Why does a 2 loss team that didn't win their conference (LSU) get in above 2 loss teams that did (OU, USC) Why does a 1 loss team that didn't win their conference (Michigan) get in but a 1 loss team that did win their conference (Louisville) stays home?
01 12-0 B10 Ohio St 02 11-1 B10 Michigan (BCS non-champion in the top 2) 03 12-1 SEC Florida 05 10-2 P10 USC 06 11-1 BE Louisville 08 12-0 WAC Boise St (nonBCS conference champion) I always let the top 2 teams in, put the limit for BCS teams at being rated #6 and the limit for nonBCS teams at #12. I'd consider not letting #2 in automatically and tightening the requirements for nonBCS teams, but since 1995 I feel pretty good about which teams were included. Wisconsin would still be left out, as would #10 OU, #11 ND, and #14 Wake.
lol... I didn't say I liked the plan, just that it is the ultimate in mind expansion on this subject. Right now the voters and computers get us a #1 and a #2. I'm not sure what adding #3 and #4 does, particularly in those years where #4 may have already lost to #1 or #2.... which was the case each of the last two years.
Well now that just put me back in my place. :shock: Good point Nutria. I guess you'd have to go by rankings. Wisconsin was # 5 probably because of SOS I'm not sure but they were ranked 5 for some reason, I can't recall. As far as the 1 loss Louisville, OU, and USC teams it was probably because of who they lost to at the time of the loss.
