HailToMichigan;1040536; said:
- 6-team playoff, taking the top 6 teams from the final BCS poll
I have never had it adequately answered to me why, if the BCS can't correctly pick the top 2 teams, it's capable of picking the top 6 (8, 12, etc.) I think if it can pick the top 6, it can pick the top two.
1. I'm not a fan of the BCS formula, but I recognize that change is slow. This is more a bone to the BCS proponents. I wouldn't have a problem going with either major poll or even something completely different as long as it made sense.
2. My problem with the BCS isn't so much the formula so much as the idea that the regular season will produce only two teams worthy of a shot.
- Top 2 teams get a first-round bye
Of course.
- First round games held at home field of higher seed
Naturally.
- NC and semi-final games rotated between Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, and Orange
What happens to the game that does not host a playoff game?
It takes the two highest BCS conference champs that didn't make the playoff (if any). If there are less than two, it can pick any non-playoff team it wants.
I absolutely cannot see fans traveling to more than one game. People don't just jaunt on down and jaunt back, they generally make a trip of it lasting a couple days and make that their holiday vacation. Getting time off for work to go to both games is nigh impossible for most people. And people aren't likely to fill up a huge stadium like the Rose Bowl on a week's notice. And you make it worse with the below....
Given what tickets go for on eBay and Stubhub and otherwise, I think there is enough demand that fans who can't go to two games don't have to. Tickets wouldn't go for 10x face value if there wasn't demand. Just think of how many people would go to the BCS game but can't get a ticket or can't afford the market price.
And that is only for the semis and final. Opening round games are played at home sites, so nobody is needed to travel at all. Thus, no team is playing more than 2 neutral site games.
- Where possible, semifinals cannot be at site within 100 miles of either team
Thus exacerbating the travel problem. First off, I see the intent of this rule and it would definitely need to be tweaked to be larger. For the Orange Bowl, for example, Florida and FSU are further than 100 miles away.
No problem.
But more importantly, demanding that the games that folks are less likely to attend be as far away from the fanbase as possible is a recipe for disaster, IMO.
As I said above, there will be more than enough butts.
Some points of my own:
- I think any playoff that involves both teams traveling to a neutral site for more than one game is totally unworkable. The travel problems for fans are insurmountable. The ACC championship game had something like 25,000 empty seats - BC and VT fans hoping to wait for the Orange Bowl. Given that the bowls that the playoffs would essentially replace always sell out, a full house for the playoffs is essential.
If the ACC championship game was a play-in for the NC game, it would've been full. Compare:
SEC CCG: 73k (capacity: 71k)
B12 CCG: 62k (capacity: 65k)
- The only equitable way to determine playoff participants is a competition committee such as they have in basketball. If you use the BCS standings or polls or what have you, you transfer the problem over. I don't buy that playoff games somehow are more magically correct at settling champions than are regular season games, therefore I believe that if you don't like the current system, you have to scrap the selection process entirely.
I'm not adamantly opposed to a committee, but I think it is a bad idea. Oklahoma fans went apeshit when they learned that a Austin lawyer was on the NCAA committee that punished them for Bomar. People are paranoid enough about ballots that have to be made public. They'd go conspiratorial about a closed-door committee.
- I'll throw in my "perfect system", it's only fair since I get to pick apart yours. It's not a playoff, it's best described as a plus-one. The Cotton and Gator Bowls would be added to the BCS, and the conference champs would be affiliated like so:
ACC -> Orange
Big East -> Gator
SEC -> Sugar
Big Ten -> Rose
Big 12 -> Cotton
Pac-10 -> Fiesta
The Pac10, BigTen and Rose Bowl would never go for that.
The competition committee would "seed" the six teams and provide a pool of six more for the bowls to choose from, which would have to include at least one non-BCS conference champ. The bowl with the highest-seeded team chooses their matchup first, and so on.
Creative. I like that, but I think you face a disconnect between the interest of the team and the interest of the bowl. The bowl wants the best matchup possible. The team may want a good matchup (if it needs to impress the committee) or it may want the easiest matchup (if it is the clear frontrunner and needs only to win.
In the end, though, I suspect it wouldn't be a big problem because I bet the bowls would opt to protect their relationship with the conference and thus let the conference decide.
These would be the only New Year's Day bowls - everyone else can do as they please.
Can I repick the Pac10 bowls?
After the bowls, the committee selects two teams to play for the title two weeks later with the bowls hosting on a rotating basis.
No problem there other than the previous hesitance about committees.
You leave intact the bowl system so you don't have to ruffle the feathers of those who sign and receive the checks.
Except for the Rose Bowl, which would never go for it. I also want to emphasize that my plan calls for the non-BCS bowls to continue on as is now. There would be bowls and a playoff.
Same system, only more money because two more bowls become huge, plus there's a title game. The regular season retains its importance because a conference championship means a chance to play for the big one, and there's still incentive to play big non-conference games.
I still don't get the regular season meaning argument as it relates to the BCSvPlayoff. The BCS currently doesn't require conference champs for its CG.
