Replies

So what you're telling me is that teams that don't play non-conference powderpuff schedules and lose will be given more "weight" that those that don't? How can that be? That sounds awfully subjective doesn't it? Would a 3 or 4 loss SEC or Big 12 (or other major conf) team deserve more weight than a 1 one loss Mid-America team? In the case of 4 losses...what if all those losses were to top 10 or 15 teams when the loss occurred? Again...it's subjective...someone is going to get hosed and everyone will argue about it.

I'm not saying other conferences don't know what they're doing, I'm sure they do. In fact, I like the idea of a playoff, however, I'm playing devil's advocate here. When you consider what's happened in Div 1 basketball throughout the years, you could infer, that the result at the end would be the same. The winner of the big dance has basically been one of the top teams during the year anyway. Same would probably hold true in football. The end result would be the same, the path to get there would be different. And for many, a lot less enjoyable. People are bowlitized (that's a new word)...they like them. Change is hard for people.

I'm curious as to how many teams would be involved in a playoff, etc.

You could have a very viable D1 playoff with 8 teams. These are the eight teams that play in the four major BCS bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta), all these games would be played within a few days of Jan 1. The major bowls and conferences would still get their money this way.

The four remaining teams would play the following week (note this is the same time that the current BCS "championship" is played. The final two teams would then play in a much hyped game in late January during the dead weekend before the Superbowl. A playoff like this would generate huge fan interest, comparable to March Madness.

I think a 32 team bracket would be even better, starting in early December. This way teams would earn their way to the final. The problem is Team 1 playing Team 32 in round 1 is likely to be a blowout. I don't think it is a good idea to have athletes off for five weeks as in the current system.