If OU makes it and UT does not

[Big Hoss]

Oh, and one thing I would suggest to improve the current BCS...

Make it a rule that any conference champion has to be in say the top 15 to actually play in a BCS bowl game. Watching the ACC and Big East this year, one could argue that none of those schools deserves to be in a BCS game.

[angryfan04]

i wish everyone would lose except for Utah......then we would we see a playoff......

[EastStang]

You know a playoff could set off a wave of realignments. For example UT seeing that it has a meatgrinder every year might decide that reconstituting the old SWC with SMU, Rice, TCU and UH might be easier than having to beat OU and OSU every year just to go to their title game. They could pretty much get an autobid every year. Boise, Colorado, AZ and ASU might decide to join the MWC. The PAC 10 may become the Pac 8 again or cherry pick from the new MWC. The Big XII might become the Big Seven and add a team like Tulsa.

[George S. Patton]

Associated Press National Title trophies have become insignificant with the creation of the BCS. They worked up until around 2000. Not anymore.

Again, HB, it's not that I hate USC and I'm coming after you because of that. I don't. Personally, I hope they b!itch slap Notre Dame for another year. I'm merely illustrating where USC's argument was flawed. P

Be Good.

[HB Pony Dad]

Associated Press National Title trophies have become insignificant with the creation of the BCS. They worked up until around 2000. Not anymore.

Again, HB, it's not that I hate USC and I'm coming after you because of that. I don't. Personally, I hope they b!itch slap Notre Dame for another year. I'm merely illustrating where USC's argument was flawed. P

Be Good.

I'm not such a homer that I assume everything USC does is "golden", however the 2003 BCS fiasco resulted in the computers having less importance and probably was the main contributory factor in the AP pulling out of the BCS.

Since the BCS is better than nothing, we all live with it as at least the "voted" No.1 and No.2 teams do actually play each other.

I still favor a playoff to decide an Actual NC rather than the "Myth" but it is what it is until at least 2014 when the Rose Bowl contract expires.

So no matter how much we be-atch & moan nothing is changing in the foreseeable future.

BTW No Harm No Foul!

[EastStang]

So no matter how much we be-atch & moan nothing is changing in the foreseeable future.

BTW No Harm No Foul!

I agree with the B10 and the P10 owning the Rose Bowl, they still have the right to pick up their marbles and go play on their own. A championship would still need the participation of all conferences to be worth anything. That is why nothing will change.

[Mountain Mustang]

Just reading through the posts and listening to Colin Cowherd on ESPN. He put forth a pretty good argument coming from someone who used to be in favor of the bowl system. He's changed his mind and wants a playoff for the simple fact that there are too many unwatchable bowl games now anyway. Here's his basic premise with my thoughts sprinkled in.

Last year you had games like Kansas vs. V-Tech, Hawaii vs. UGA, and USC vs. Illinois in the BCS bowls. Those aren't exciting, sexy ratings magnet matchups. The way the bowl system used to be produced better matchups than that. But since the powers that be tried to "fix" things with the BCS, these are the kind of matchups we've been given. If you're going to fix something might as well do it all the way.

His method was remarkably simple. Eliminate one non-conference game to shorten the season by a game (I'd add in there that no FBS team should be allowed to play a FCS team). Take your top 8 BCS ranked teams for your playoff. If you look at the rankings the way they are today that would give you Bama, UT, OU, UF, USC, Utah, TTU, PSU.

#9 Boise, sorry play some better non-conference teams. OSU, UGA, OK St., Mizzou you shouldn't have lost twice. His other point was that no team ranked #9 or worse by December 10 could ever argue that they should've had a legit shot at the national title in past history.

Play the first round of games at home early in December. The top 4 seeds get the home games. Play the two semifinal games on New Year's and play the final game the week after. That means a max of 2 neutral site games that fans would have to travel to.

Use the Rose Bowl, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowl in a rotation where one year one of the bowls wouldn't be involved and could have their pick of teams for their game that year just as the Cotton, Outback, Gator, etc. bowls do now. IE one year the Championship game would be at the Rose Bowl; the semis at the Sugar and Orange, and Fiesta is the odd bowl out.

It works for those bowls because they're highly relevant 3 out of 4 years, and they could probably get a great matchup their off year anyway. All the rest of the bowls would be in the same situation they are now, trying to find good regional matchups and exciting games from the remaining teams.

This would by far give fans the most number of great games during the bowl season. They'll watch more which means more ratings, which makes sponsors happy. It would still make the regular season very important because a good team has to play well to get into the final 8. The best matchups like Tx-OU, UF-LSU, UF-GA, TTU-UT, etc. will still grab great ratings in the regular season because people will watch a great product and college football is exactly that.

In the current format every week is not a playoff, every week just leads to more speculation, and more frustration. Sure the games are exciting, but they'd be just as exciting in my opinion under a playoff format and we'd actually get a true national champ in the end.

The bottom line is there's no reason we shouldn't be able to figure out a legit method of naming a champ in the only major sport that can't seem to do this. The people that don't want this in my opinion are the ones that fear change in general. Change already started in college football with the advent of the BCS, now let's just evolve it to the point where it's a useful meaningful system.

[PK]

For the most part, a good plan except for..."Take your top 8 BCS ranked teams for your playoff." This still leaves the BCS in prime time and shafts everyone else. Change that to the top 8 rated conference champions and it is a better deal. Today they would be mostly current BCS teams, but in the long haul, recruiting would become more open and more conferences would become competitive allowing the wealth of college football to be shared more equitably.

[Mountain Mustang]

True, but that doesn't necessarily give you the best 8 teams. Prime example the Big 12 would only be able to send one team and you'd have to send a team from the Big East and ACC. I think eventually you'd like to get it out to 16 teams with conference winners and a few at large, but the above plan would be the best starting point in my opinion.

[couch 'em]

Ugh. Playoff involving conference champions. Everyone else just plays bowl games. Problem solved. Fair for all. Everyone still makes money.

[ReedFrawg]

Leave the bowls in place.

12 Team Playoff - big enough to be "open" but not big enough to allow a lot of 2 loss teams in.

Top 6 or 8 conference champs and 4 or 6 at-large. Top 4 teams get a bye which gives them incentive late in the year.

5-8 seeds host 9-12 in 1st round.

Quarterfinals hosted by 1-4 seeds.

Semis and Final rotated through current BCS bowls.

[PK]

True, but that doesn't necessarily give you the best 8 teams. Prime example the Big 12 would only be able to send one team and you'd have to send a team from the Big East and ACC. I think eventually you'd like to get it out to 16 teams with conference winners and a few at large, but the above plan would be the best starting point in my opinion.

What would you accomplish by sending two teams or more from the same conference? The conference champion has already beat out the other teams and only head to head games with other conference champions would determine if the rankings were valid anyway. The whole idea of a playoff is to determine the NC not who might be #3, 4, 5, etc. and if someone else can knock off your conference champion and you couldn't then it doesn't mattered that you were not in the playoffs.

[mathman]

True, but that doesn't necessarily give you the best 8 teams. Prime example the Big 12 would only be able to send one team and you'd have to send a team from the Big East and ACC. I think eventually you'd like to get it out to 16 teams with conference winners and a few at large, but the above plan would be the best starting point in my opinion.

What would you accomplish by sending two teams or more from the same conference? The conference champion has already beat out the other teams and only head to head games with other conference champions would determine if the rankings were valid anyway. The whole idea of a playoff is to determine the NC not who might be #3, 4, 5, etc. and if someone else can knock off your conference champion and you couldn't then it doesn't mattered that you were not in the playoffs.

I think that makes sense to me. Gonna sleep on it though.

[J.T.supporta]

Boomer Sooner. Have no use for UT. They would be getting done to them what the BCS does to all non-BCS schools on an annual basis. Really hope it happens. TCU is going to wind up in one of the MWC's pitiful bowls when in fact they could beat half the teams in the top ten. The ACC and BE will have teams in the BCS bowls with 3 or 4 losses. Sympathy for Texas?? Nope.

UT wont get jumped in the BCS because the computers know they arent a fraud like UF, thats why they got jumped.

no matter what, the "overrated" big xii as some of you would call them will yet again have 2 teams in the BCS

Big X11 not overrated at all. TT, OU, and UT all deserve to be in a BCS bowl. That is what will be so sweet if UT doesn't get in. More pain.

i know the conference is not overrated, i know in years past people on the board would rag on the conference for being overrated

[mr. pony]

Let Obama fix it.