National Playoff in Football: my idea

Bumped. Nice post initiating great discussion that others may find worthwhile to dive right in. GO BRUINS.-N

I noticed this in the LATimes today.

(I can't figure out how to box a quote, so I won't bother. I'll be happy if I got the link part right. I'm learning....)

Anyway, the article deals with the BCS "Plus One" scenario possibly coming up for a vote, and that the Pac 10 and Big Ten will nix the idea, effectively killing it, since it requires a unanimous vote.

I would be curious what the BN faithful think of this idea. I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I'm sure there are lots of us who have come aboard since its last discussion and would like to get our two cents' worth out there for the record.

I will go on record and state that I don't like any of the ideas for playoffs I have heard bounced around, since ultimately they all lead back to the polls. And most of us west-coasters think the polls favor eastern teams anyway--in particular the SEC, who seem to make a killing scheduling 1-AA teams and Sun Belt Conference teams, with only Georgia, I think, making some honest effort to play good non-conference schedules. Yes, I know Tennessee is playing UCLA, and has done so within recent memory, but the SEC teams have 4 out-of-conference games on their schedule, and most of the teams schedule 4 mediocre teams, or one good team and three very bad teams. As I said, over the past few years, only Georgia seems to make any real attempt to play worthy opponents at least half the time. Their tired SEC argument for doing so is that their conference is so tough--but how do we know that, really, when they generally schedule a gaggle of nobodies, and then face each other? The intra-SEC competition is so insular that with no exterior points of reference, they can't even prove the SEC schedule is tough.

Anyway, as I was saying, anything that puts too much credence on the polls is a waste of time, as I see it. I can't help but wonder how in the world USC was left out of the title game when they were #1 in both polls a few years back. That made no sense then, and still doesn't today. Two lesser teams, LSU and Oklahoma, played a very dull national championship game, when USC would likely have beaten either team badly, and given that they were poised to do so in both polls; but ultimately they were given the "No Trojans Need Apply" plaquard quite out of the blue.

I am sorry that may sound like a love fest for South Centralites--I wish it were not so, but there's really no getting around that they were the best college team that year.

The Pac 10 in particular has every reason to dismiss any National Championship playoff format that gets decided in the polls. Within the last, what, 5 or 6 years (maybe a little more) Oregon State, Oregon, and Cal have been screwed by the BCS selection committees, and the aforementioned USC debacle prevented a Pac 10 representative the chance to earn a national championship. So why would the Pac 10 come on board for such a thing as a national championship, even in a "plus one" scenario, which will boil down to voters in the end anyway.

So, here's my proposal for a playoff system:

Conference champions only.

There are 11 conferences in Division 1 (Bowl Division, or whatever). Six of them are the major conferences: Pac 10, Big Ten, Big XII, ACC, Big East (debatable, but they managed to convince someone of this when Miami and VT were there) and the SEC.

So, the winners of these conferences go automatically to the playoff format.

The remaining conferences--C-USA, Mountian West, Sun Belt, WAC, Mid-American, and the 1-A  independents get two at-large berths. This past year, that might have been Hawaii and BYU. Would BYU belong there? No, but at least these other conferences would have a shot at a championship game, whereas now they are basically locked out. Did Hawaii belong? Debatable, but they made it anyway, had their chance, and got shown the door quiclky and rudely.

So, those are my eight teams in the playoff. Seed them however you like, but they're all in, and that's the point. And I'll get to how the bowls would fit in in a minute.

The winners advance to the semis, to be played wherever, and from there to the NC game. Now, this would only add 1 WEEK to the current schedule, since this year's NC game was held a week after the Rose Bowl. THAT week would be the semis, and the championship game the following Monday, so as not to interfere with the NFL playoffs, happening concurrently.

An added benefit of this would be that teams would not be afraid to play a top program and lose, which in the current state of things could well eliminate them from NC contention. But not so under this policy. They could have 3 losses in non-conference and still be in the NC game. Don't we all get tired of seeing crap games like [pick any SEC team] vs. Troy State? Games like that are a joke. And yeah, App. St. beating Michigan was great to see, but how often can you expect that to happen, and wouldn't seeing UCLA playing non-conf. schedule of LSU, Ohio St., and Miami be much more exciting, when these caliber games are the norm and not the exception? It means it's ALL about winning the conference, since if you lose a conference game you're screwed. Yetif you lose a non-conference game, it can be a sizing-up affair for any team to see where they stand againt tough competition. Isn't that how it's supposed to be? Nobody could force an extra SEC or Big Ten team into the playoff format. Every major conference gets to put up its champion, and no one else. League champs only! There is no room for bias, with the exception of a team like Notre Dame, whom the networks would want in, but they already have requirements to get guaranteed entrance anyway. And if they're the best of the rest, then so be it. It would always guarantee a Boise or Hawaii or Fresno or Bowling Green or BYU or Utah or the like a shot. That, to me, makes it much more likely to be a legitimate NC game than what polls might decide.

Now, how do the bowls fit in? I would see the four major bowls host the Quarter finals, and all on Jan. 1st, as it ought to be. (My personal preference would be to kick out the Fiesta Bowl since that used to be a second-tier affair until they brought in Tostitos, I think, and hosted Penn St. and Miami--but before that "NC" game, they were aligned with the Pac 10, I believe, and not a major bowl; I would replace them with the Cotton Bowl, since there in much more tradition in that game and it's old Southwest Conference ties.)

None of the other bowls need to be compromised, and only 1 week gets added to the fray. You'd have a legitimate playoff of conference champions, and TWO (as opposed to the begrudgingly-given one we've had, and only the last two years at that--Boise and Hawaii) non-(current)BCS teams. Every team in Div. 1 could have a fair shot. The mid-level and lower level teams would have to earn it, but there would be an avenue by which they could.

Not a finished product by any means, but it addresses a lot of the current concerns and apprehensions about a playoff system, and might be something everyone could get something out of.

At any rate, I'd love to hear what BN thinks, pro or con, or your ideas as to how a playoff ought to work.