My bad, I was looking at the final Pre-Bowl games AP.

IMO you can't have a flexible rule about conf. champs. Either you have to win your conference, or you don't.

I'm OK with leaving out teams that don't win their conference.
For the other 3, please call the AD"S of those 3 schools, and tell them they aren't allowed to participate because some people and a couple of computers are "guessing" that they're not good enough.

Actually, my problem is in your next sentence.

For this reason, any playoff system that uses any type of poll/ranking/computer/tribal council will be utterly flawed and full of controversy.

That's the reason that no poll should decide who gets in.

O.k. we've established you have to win your conference, and BCS schools must finish in top 6. And if I remember correctly, you said non-BCS school must finish in top 12.
What would you have done in '01 when only 3 BCS conf. champs finished in top 6, and no non-BCS schools finished in top 12?

I'm OK with this.

LSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin don't get in because they didn't win their conference, but a different conference runner up goes, because their champ wasn't good enough? Good luck trying to sell that one.

You mean the most diverse group from what people and computers guessed are the top.

Fine with me.

Don't know if they belong or not until the games are played.

You hope.

Riiiight. We only let 4 in this year (actually '06). Have to be conference champ, and finish in top 6 of BCS. Cool. OSU, Florida, USC, and Louisville. An undefeated small school still gets left out. Along with 2 BCS conference champs. I'm sure the presidents, AD's, and Conference Commisioners will accept that.

In that particular year, maybe. Get back to me when you find a rule that works for last year, AND '01 (Link to BCS Archives), oh and it has to work every year in between those as well. If you have to change your rules every year, the system is no better than we have now.

We're talking about top 6 teams here, not scrubs. Making the top 6 is quite an accomplishment and leaves within reasonable doubt that you may be the best team in the nation. I'd be leaving out the #7 team, but that is much less a travesty than leaving out #3. Compared to now, public outcry would be muted.

Those other 3 schools had no public sentiment, no expert opinion, no grassroots campaign that believed they were possibly the best team in the nation. There is no way a #10 BCS team deserves to be playing for the NC (unless it is a nonBCS team). BCS teams have their chance in the regular season to be rated highly and have no one to blame but themselves if they stumble along the way. NonBCS teams don't have that same opportunity in the regular season and can't help which conference they play in, so certain allowances should be made for them.

By allowing the #6 team and non-champions on occasion, I'd be inviting some grumbling from conference champions and the #7 team. By inviting eligible non-champions when champions aren't available, though, we are spreading the wealth to as many conferences as possible and including a wider sample to overcome any small flaws in the rating system chosen. There has to be a cutoff point or the regular season will have no meaning.

The biggest hub-bub might occur if a #6 nonchampion were invited and a #7 champion were left out. And what if the #6 went on to win the whole thing and the #7 blasted their bowl opponent. #7 might be pissed they weren't allowed in, #1 might be pissed a #6 was let in, but if we let in a #7 then the regular season starts to mean less, because usually #7 has no bearing on the NC and doesn't belong in the conversation. And if we cut away at the #6 rating, less conferences want to participate. I'd accept the outcry at the worst case scenerio as much better than what we have now.

They aren't that off, and by allowing as diverse a group of eligible schools to the playoff as possible, there is going to be less resistance to it. Some conferences might be upset that they don't have a guarantee to the playoff, but why should there be automatic tie-ins to the NC? Those conferences that don't make the playoff will still have big money bowls to go to. There should be no guarantee that conferences play for a NC, else we'll be having too often undeserving schools invited which waters down the regular season.

01 Miami Florida
02 Nebraska
03 Colorado
04 Oregon
06 Tennessee (gets in over Florida because they beat Florida)
If Nebraska isn't invited there is a huge controversy. That's why I have autobids for #1 and #2. The SEC champion (LSU) is not in the top 6, so I invite Tennessee, who gets in over #5 Florida because Tennessee beat Florida in the regular season. Would Florida be upset? Maybe, but they lost the head to head matchup. Would #8 Illinois be upset? Maybe, but they had their chances in the regular season. The public outcry would be much less for Illinois that it would be for Nebraska. There is a difference between NC contender and not.

What small minority was calling for LSU and Wisconsin? Michigan is a different story, but I honestly believe they'd have been ranked #2 at the end if the people wouldn't have wanted to ensure Florida a spot in the NC game (instead of having a Michigan v Ohio St rematch). At #2, Michigan makes it in.

It is more than just a guess, and to say otherwise is to ignore popular opinion among those interested in college football. Those calling for LSU and Wisconsin would really be in the minority.

I'd be inviting Michigan and Boise St. #10 OU, #11 ND, and #14 Wake would be left out. I can imagine the devastation... not.

I don't have to change my rules each year. Same rules, different results, in response to how the season plays out. Every year is different, we shouldn't be trying to fit it into a prepackaged playoff. I've figured out what would happen every year since 1995. I see much less controversy (I may be a little biased, but unlike others who push for a 4 team playoff, I include the feelings of the little guys, whose feelings are becoming more relevant each year).

2006
1 01 12-0 B10 Ohio St
2 02 11-1 B10 Michigan
3 03 12-1 SEC Florida
4 05 10-2 P10 USC
5 06 11-1 BE Louisville
6 08 12-0 WAC Boise St

Left Out
04 10-2 SEC LSU
07 11-1 B10 Wisconsin
10 11-2 B12 Oklahoma
11 10-2 IND Notre Dame
14 11-2 ACC Wake Forest
20 10-2 MWC BYU
10-3 CUS Houston
09-4 MAC C Michigan
07-5 SB Troy


2001
1 01 11-0 BE Miami FL
2 02 11-1 B12 Nebraska
3 03 10-2 B12 Colorado
4 04 10-1 P10 Oregon
5 06 10-2 SEC Tennessee

Left Out
05 09-2 SEC Florida
08 10-1 B10 Illinois
10 09-2 ACC Maryland
13 09-3 SEC LSU
12-1 MWC BYU
10-2 CUS Louisville
09-2 MAC Toledo
08-3 IND S Florida
07-4 WAC Louisiana Tech
05-6 SB N Texas

I think something like what I'm proposing kind of addresses this. NonBCS teams have a real shot and BCS conferences aren't guaranteed positions in the playoff. The NonBCS teams would have no argument to insist on being included because not even the BCS teams are guaranteed a position.

The BCS teams might not like not being guaranteed a NC position, but why should any conference be guaranteed to play for a NC? That is something that should be earned. The BCS schools not making the playoff would still make lucrative bowls, so the money would still be there for them, more or less. I can even see splitting BCS profits among all conferences - possibly breaking it up by conference rating each year.

Top 6 that people are just picking and choosing on. Not earned on the field. That's still a problem.

IF you recall before the bowls last year, ESPN had a mock play-off scenario. The experts put LSU in the title game. You just left them home.

Correct, let's punish LSU for losing to 2 top 10 teams, both on the road, and reward Boise for playing ZERO ranked teams.

They also don't have the landmines that'll knock them out of contention. You just sent the message to WAC schools "It's ok to schedule OOC competition that stands no chance of being ranked at the end of the season. We'll still let you in over a team that fell short against a schedule full of ranked teams."

Would be an arse load of grumbling. Especially if the reason #6 is ahead of #7 is because 6 lost week 3 while 7 lost week 4. So #6 you get in, because your toughest game happened to be played 1 week earlier than #7's toughest game.

You here all the complaining about it, just like we did in '01 and '03.

,

I'm sure the BCS gurus felt the same way when they tweaked the system after '03. Ooops. Then '04 happened.

So we use BCS rankings. Except we're going to take #6 over #5. By the way, you only have 5 teams up there.

Michigan is not at 2, regardless of what you thought.

The experts guessed that Michigan would win in a mock playoff system. They guessed wrong obviously.

Do you honestly believe that if you left # 4 home in favor of #8, the outcry would be minimal?

If you take #3, leave out #4, and take #8, people will be p!$$ed. A not just a minority.

So have I. and I found controversy every year. Just like now.

Michigan is not #2. You cannot just change the rankings to make your system work. Michigan is out. If you still let Michigan in at #3, you have to let LSU in at #4.

That's only 5 teams. Who's the 6th? By your rules, it has to be Florida (got to finish top 6 as a BCS school, and no non-BCS schools finished top 12). So in essence, you just took 2 teams with 2 losses each, that did not win their conference over a 1 loss Big Ten champ. Nah, that shouldn't p!$$ anybody off.

Perhaps we should now pause for a commercial message.

Good, I was getting a headache.

A 2 team playoff? Are you really sure that Oklahoma deserved to be in that "2 team playoff" in either 03 or 04? No, we have a system that selects the top bowl matchups. No team can play in more than one bowl game.

What you are advocating is giving select teams an extra game. I just don't see the NCAA sanctioning that. Sorry.

Remember, the reason the BCS came up with the BCSCG was to pacify the non-BCS conferences and keep them from suing for collusion. The addition of the BCSCG opens up 2 more at-large spots, meaning Boise State and Notre Dame are left out last year. Your solution would reduce the number of teams in the BCS bowls back to 8, so the chance for the small teams to get into them is reduced. That won't make the small conferences happy.

Obviously, you and I see this differently. Oh well, GEAUX TIGERS.

Now that is a good and valid point.

I just don't see the problem as an unsolvable one. I can think of a lot of ways that could allow it to happen. If you look in the not-too-distant past, you'll find the NCAA approving conference championship games, and approving a permanent 12th game to the regular season. If the plan is crafted well, and sold well, one extra game for just two teams could be approved as well, in my opinion. The key is how is the money divided, not the extra game.

That's another good point, but once again I don't see it as unsolvable. As you mention above, they came up with the extra game for the championship to pacify the non-BCS conferences, so there's no reason they can't come up with another way of doing the same thing. Plus, and this is very important in my opinion, expanding to 4 teams will increase the likelihood of non-BCS teams to make it into the national championship picture. So unlike just adding in an extra bowl game with no national title implications, the BCS can honestly boast that they are increasing the number of spots available to compete for the national title.

Barely. It is nearly impossible for a nonBCS team to get that high.

True, I know Boise State reached #5 last year, but that was after their bowl win over Oklahoma. But if their chances with 2 teams is 1%, and their chances with 4 team is 2%, that still means their chances doubled, right?

That's why I like that John Feinstein article that I linked to - sorry to repeat, but it makes lots of sense and passes the "fairness" test to me:

12 teams
#1-4 get a bye week
#5-8 host a home game against #9-12
Any undefeated team not in the top 8 get priority in spots 9-12. (This is my modification.)

Sure, an undefeated SWAC team would very likely get killed by most top BCS team, but this will let it play out on the field. Almost everyone thought USC was going to stomp all over Stanford too, and we were wrong on that.