PonyFans.com

Just think, if the BCS formula were utilized in basketball, Syracuse and Kansas wouldn't have been "allowed" to play for the national championship. Same can be said for Marquette, Michigan State, Gonzaga, Auburn, etc. A playoff system is needed.

Consider this:

1. the bowl system would actually make more money, through advertising and attendance, because each bowl game would actually have implications attached. I can't believe that the Mobile Bowl (pick any of the mid or lower tiered bowls) would have much more profit attached to it if the winner moves on to play for something.

2. the "student athlete" that the NCAA seems to be so concerned with would actually benefit. Right now, consider that a team such as TCU, Boise St. TT, etc., currently has to wait around until Christmas Eve, or later, to play in a meaningless bowl game. During this whole time, the team is still practicing and finals are occuring. If you had a 32 team (16 game) playoff that started the first week of December, half the "student athletes" would be done that weekend. Another half would be done the next weekend. Thus, by the time "finals" roll around at most campuses, there would only be about 8 teams left. So, those in the NCAA who seem to be so concerned with the "student athlete" should actually favor a system that negatively impacts far less student athletes than the current system. I suspect the kicker in this scenario is the conference championship games. However, if I were a member of one of the BCS conferences, I would want to do away with these games b/c a loss could severely effect my final rankings in the polls.

3. Finally, I think we've seen in basketball that the better teams usually weed out the weaker teams - but not always. However, it will likely never occur that the teams that finish the regular season ranked 1-4 in the polls actually make it to the final 4. Granted, the polls will still be somewhat political and everyone will have an opinion. However, this type of playoff offers much more equity, entertainment and, in my opion, profit, than the current system.

I realize that I'm dreaming by even posting this. However, in an otherwise down time of year, I thought it might be interesting to toss around.

That might well be the best argument I've read for a playoff. Not that there were any bad arguments - the need for a playoff is more than obvious. Well said, CP.

Even a 16 team playoff with all conference champions and several at-large represented would be a good start. Even a 20 team with a play-in including conference champions would be good. If you want the SBC, MWC, WAC and MAC to have a play-in game would not be horrible. You could still have the other bowls (like the NIT) for the left-outs. If you went with the oldest bowls being playoff bowls, you would have few problems. Thus, the Gator, Liberty, Cotton would get the quarterfinals and one former BCS big 4. Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange would rotate quarterfinals, semi-finals and finals.

Cowboy- I agree. I've used the same arguments forever. Don't expect it though. The BCS schools won't allow anyone in their club. You could actually take all of the bowls and eliminate one scheduled game for the regular year and still get almost all athletes out of practice quicker. Only those surviving final four would have longer seasons. Only about 8 teams would play more games than they do now. The money would be unbelievable (but the BCS schools would have to share with the rest of the NCAA). The C in BCS continues to be superfluous.