Quote:
Originally Posted by Gugstanley
To keep the season meaning a lot you only take conference champions into the playoff and have computer rankings determine the at large teams (With Oklahoma still ranked we see that humans can't rank teams objectively). A 16 team playoff starting the first weekend of December with winners playing every two weeks until a champion is crowned in Mid January.
Aren't their eleven conferences? So that leave five at large teams. Make every conference bulk up to at minimum twelve members with a conference championship game so the road the the championship is even.
All other bowl eligible teams can still play the low paying bowl games scattered throughout the month. We all watch college football all the time so they still would be watched. Sure someone will always be left out but if you didn't win your conference then you don't have much to complain about. The schedule will allow teams to play rivals and a strong out of conference schedule without penalty.
|
This is what I mean, it seems all well and good but if you start going through the consequences of each aspect there are some major issues, and I'm not willing to trade current issues for new ones.
Taking all 11 conference champs is a non-starter. You're telling me that Troy, Buffalo and East Carolina (to take last seasons champions) should get into the mix for a national title while a team that finishes third in the Big 12 shouldn't? It's all well and good to incorporate the WAC or MWC at the moment seeing as they include a team or two that aren't out of place, but that's not the case with C-USA or the Sun Belt, and the MAC is hit and miss. Add in the proposed forcing of conferences to expand (I'm not even going to get into the myriad of issues surrounding something like forced expansion) and the calibre of teams rolling out of those mid-majors takes another blow. Why would a commissioner at the Pac 10 or SEC sign on to a system that hands the Sun Belt champ a massive check while their third place team stays home?
As for those remaining bowls, is anyone who doesn't have some interest in the game actually going to watch? I highly doubt it. The lesser bowls have been struggling for ratings and sponsorships for the last few years, something like this would all but kill them.
Eliminate the whole 'every conference winner gets in' thing and it's a solid starting point. Maybe something like pay-in games among mid-major teams would work. The forced expansion is pretty much a no-go, as I've said elsewhere these aren't just football leagues, but I don't think a lack of conference expansion is a deal killer. There would have to be something worked out in regards to Notre Dame, I'd love to see them simply frozen out until they join a conference but that's not realistic. My point is that the list of things to deal with and the consequences of instituting a playoff is massive and I don't see a way to make the switch without swapping one problem for another.
I still stand by the plus one system, I think it preserves the integrity of the regular season, maintains the majority of the existing bowl structure, and still places the two best teams in the title game. Let's be honest, how many years have their been more than 4 teams that were legit claimants to a title shot at the end of the regular season?