/i'm sure they'll fark it up somehow

simplicimus: A playoff is cool, but the NCAA should give the kids a piece of the take.

this.

I figured it would be remembered for the first time southerners were pro abortion. That game was an awful repeat of an awful game.

Captain Steroid: I'll believe it when I see it.

This, that, same and 2st that.

Marcus Aurelius: They need to do something after that snoozefest.

People are forgetting the last major tournament title game put on by the NCAA. That UConn/Butler game was every bit the turd last night's game was.

You know the nice thing about the playoff (like the Final Four). People might be annoyed that they didn't get into the playoff, but it's not like #15 seed Texarkana State was gonna win it all. Everyone with a reasonable shot is in the playoff. They get their chance.

Whereas with the BCS as it now stands, there can be 4 or 5 teams with reasonable cases for at least being in the game, and they don't even get a shot.

BigJake: Marcus Aurelius: They need to do something after that snoozefest.

People are forgetting the last major tournament title game put on by the NCAA. That UConn/Butler game was every bit the turd last night's game was.

Championship game as a dud or not, the tournament is always has exciting games. The same would be true for the playoff (hopefully).

Jonny Chimpo: the tournament is always has exciting games.

And the other BCS games were pretty entertaining.

Starting with game three of the LSU-Alabama series?

Seems awfully foolish to leave it tied at 1-1.

So, what-- a playoff system based on record or based on polls? 8, 12, 16, or 24 (+1)? Who gets byes? Neutral field or home turf?

IAmRight: Jonny Chimpo: Championship game as a dud or not, the tournament is always has exciting games. The same would be true for the playoff (hopefully).

Oh, so it doesn't matter that those games weren't for a championship as long as they were exciting.

If you watched the bowl games, many of those were exciting as well!

That is true. However, people would have to know a game is exciting beforehand. The most exciting college football game in my lifetime (Boise State vs. Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl) actually got very poor ratings. The National Championship game that year got much better ratings despite being an unexciting blowout (unless you were a Gators fan). The fact is the masses will more than likely watch a game on the basis of it is a playoff game or the National Championship over a game that "could" be exciting.

Why bother winning your own conference when you can win THE WHOLE THING!!!!

Seriously, though, I do like the idea of four super conferences, with the winners of those conferences participating in a 4-team playoff.

That's kinda the impetus behind bowl games in the first place isn't it? To see how the best teams, after winning their own conferences, would fare against teams from OTHER conferences?

I bet it comes wrapped in Guiness bar towels and packed in Duke Nukem II boxes and delivered by flying cars that cure cancer.

IAmRight: Quiefenburger: Apples to oranges really. If you make it an 8 team football tournament, 3 weeks long, cut one week from the regular season, a 12-1 team like Boise State would get a fair shake at staking their claim.

And you have a huge problem with ensuring money is distributed equitably.

While I feel you have a good point that I hadn't thought of before, but the current BCS has that somewhat though. The Big 12 had one qualifying team in Oklahoma State that played a very exciting and I am guessing a relatively high rated game vs. Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl. The Big East had one team play in the Orange Bowl against Clemson in what I am guessing is the lowest rated BCS game this year by far. The Big 12 and Big East still got the same amount of money. While the problem is there on the distributing funds part, it isn't like the BCS is already the epitome of fairness with that as it currently stands.

Quiefenburger: Except #15 in your scenario is like #68 or something in terms of the top teams in NCAA basketball. Apples to oranges really. If you make it an 8 team football tournament, 3 weeks long, cut one week from the regular season, a 12-1 team like Boise State would get a fair shake at staking their claim.

I like the 8 team playoff too. It's pretty much a 16 team playoff with the conference championships.

IAmRight: And you have a huge problem with ensuring money is distributed equitably.

Lol, as opposed to now? Can't really get any more lopsided than it is now.

Lt. Col. Angus: Seems awfully foolish to leave it tied at 1-1.

Any more foolish than Giants/Pats 2007/8?

BigJake: Lt. Col. Angus: Seems awfully foolish to leave it tied at 1-1.

Any more foolish than Giants/Pats 2007/8?

nah, because the giants/pats were tied on aggregate score too. that was really foolish.

So is this where we debate playoff formats?

Personally, I like 8. 4 is too small, as you'd still have the problem you do now with 1/2 the teams being effectively eliminated before a single game is played, no matter how good their record. Plus, as we've seen, sometimes there are more than 4 undefeated teams.

16 is too big. If you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be in the playoffs. If you want to keep the regular season relevant, you have to make the conference games relevant. Same thinking applies to 12, 32 and 64 team tourneys.

I like 8 because the existing bowl system is 3 weeks long, so you wouldn't be expanding the schedule any. While it's unfair to tell Hawaii/Boise/TCU/Utah that even though they're undefeated they don't get a shot, I think it's fair enough to tell the #9 team that they could have done better to get into the tourney, as I doubt there will ever be more than 8 undefeated teams.

Seeding would be done by BCS rank, meaning that strength of schedule and OOC games wouldn't be worthless. Also, independents could get in the tourney if they achieve a high enough ranking.

Under this system, the 2011-2012 playoff would have been like this:

1. LSU vs 8. West Virginia

2. Oklahoma State vs. 7 Houston

3. Stanford vs. 6 Virginia Tech

4. Boise State vs. 5. Wisconsin

USC woulda wiped the floor with LSU or 'Bama. Hell, combine LSU or Alabama for a dreamteam and 'SC still would have won.

Horrible offenses.

I'm just going to go ahead and say it, folks that want a playoff are going to get what they want, then you are going to have to beat USC/Ohio State and 2 SEC teams...good luck with that.

lajotu: Why bother winning your own conference when you can win THE WHOLE THING!!!!

- Sincerely, the Green Bay Packers

All 6 conference champions get a seed, 1 through 8 based on ranking. 2 at-large bids by popular vote. 8 team playoff, played in all four major bowls (sugar, rose, orange, cotton). Use the godaddy.com bowl for the final 4 and BCS for all I care. Keep your money whoring lesser-bowls for those fighting for bragging rights for top 9-25 slots at the end of the year.

I just fixed the entire mess. Where's my commish, commish?

ole prophet: I'm just going to go ahead and say it, folks that want a playoff are going to get what they want, then you are going to have to beat USC/Ohio State and 2 SEC teams...good luck with that.

That would be fine by me. At least it would be proved out on the football field as opposed to cranked out by some computer and a good-ol'-boy poll/bowl system.

BigJake: - Sincerely, the Green Bay Packers

Funny button for you, sir!

Comparing NFL to NCAAF never gets old! NEVER!!

lacydog: Personally, I like 8. 4 is too small, as you'd still have the problem you do now with 1/2 the teams being effectively eliminated before a single game is played, no matter how good their record. Plus, as we've seen, sometimes there are more than 4 undefeated teams.

It depends on how many conferences we wind up with. If there's only 4 conferences, the conference championship games essentially become your "8 teams" scenario.

HeadLever: ole prophet: I'm just going to go ahead and say it, folks that want a playoff are going to get what they want, then you are going to have to beat USC/Ohio State and 2 SEC teams...good luck with that.

That would be fine by me. At least it would be proved out on the football field as opposed to cranked out by some computer and a good-ol'-boy poll/bowl system.

The point is, the national champion will be USC/Ohio State or (and more than likely) an SEC team. It is going to be an arse kicking and within ten years the calls for the SEC to become a D-League for the NFL will begin because the playoffs aren't fair.

lajotu: Comparing NFL to NCAAF never gets old! NEVER!!

Agreed. Which is why CFB shouldn't imitate its postseason

ole prophet: The point is, the national champion will be USC/Ohio State or (and more than likely) an SEC team. It is going to be an arse kicking and within ten years the calls for the SEC to become a D-League for the NFL will begin because the playoffs aren't fair.

The playoff is much more fair than what we have now. Just because the results may be the same does not mean that it is inherently any less 'unfair'.

IAmRight: Push more money to teams advancing, and if there are just a couple of years where one conference dominates, then they'll be even more set up than the SEC currently is.

So, it will be the same?

lajotu: Why bother winning your own division, conference or all of your home games when you can win THE WHOLE THING!!!!

FTFY

lacydog: 1. LSU vs 8. West Virginia
2. Oklahoma State vs. 7 Houston
3. Stanford vs. 6 Virginia Tech
4. Boise State vs. 5. Wisconsin

Why did you clarify that teams should win their conference (I'm assuming you wanted to get Alabama out of the system) and then put Stanford in the playoffs? Not to mention, those games look even more worthless than the current bowl match ups. The first three would probably be massive blow-outs and the last one is moderately interesting.

And, seriously, Virginia Tech, Houston, Boise State, and Wisconsin are not national title contenders.

I'd really like someone to find a year where everyone felt the 5th or 6th team really got screwed.

Alabama vs OKST in the Sugar Bowl
LSU vs Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl.

Winners play a week later in Cowboy stadium.

Of course, Oregon won the conference, but Stanford only had one loss...so people can argue about whether Oregon gets a rematch.