4-TEAM PLAYOFF COMING???

[GatorGrad]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172007/sports/a_football_final_four_sports_lenn_robbins.htm

Check out that link. The current BCS contract includes the 2007, 2008, and 2009 seasons. So this 4-team BCS Plus One Playoff could happen as early as the 2010 season (2011 bowls.) I think they'll get it done. Getting the Rose Bowl, Big Ten, and PAC 10 on board would be the key. It wouldn't be a perfect playoff, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. The bowl system would remain intact and had this sytem been in place, the following BCS Era teams would have gotten the opportunity that they thought they deserved:


1998 - Ohio St
2000 - Miami & Washington
2001 - Oregon & Colorado
2003 - USC
2004 - Auburn
2006 - Michigan

It probably won't solve the issues like Utah '04 or Boise St '06, but it's a step in the right direction IMO. I think it will get done.

[CJHawkeyes]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172007/sports/a_football_final_four_sports_lenn_robbins.htm

Check out that link. The current BCS contract includes the 2007, 2008, and 2009 seasons. So this 4-team BCS Plus One Playoff could happen as early as the 2010 season (2011 bowls.) I think they'll get it done. Getting the Rose Bowl, Big Ten, and PAC 10 on board would be the key. It wouldn't be a perfect playoff, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. The bowl system would remain intact and had this sytem been in place, the following BCS Era teams would have gotten the opportunity that they thought they deserved:


1998 - Ohio St
2000 - Miami & Washington
2001 - Oregon & Colorado
2003 - USC
2004 - Auburn
2006 - Michigan

It probably won't solve the issues like Utah '04 or Boise St '06, but it's a step in the right direction IMO. I think it will get done.

I hope this happens and I think the Utah-Boise State situation gets resolved if the BCS formula is replaced by rules that actually encourage games versus these type of teams.

[GatorGrad]

And the more I think of it, the more I think that with a 4-team playoff, the voters would tend to try to "bump up" an unbeaten mid major into a 4th spot in the case of Boist St '06 or Utah '04. Say there are three clear top three teams from BCS Conferences, all with one or no losses...and every other BCS team has two or more losses. I could see voters purposely "bumping up" an unbeaten mid major to the 4th playoff spot over a two loss, or even one loss BCS team if need be to make sure that they gave them a chance. I'm not saying that it's right, and this scenario further proves what a sham "voting" is, but well...it is what it is.

Bottom line - I think arguing over who finishes 4th/5th with the 5th best team being left out is better than arguing over who finishes 2nd/3rd with the 3rd place team being left out as we have now. How many times can you look at a team that didn't finish in the top four of any poll and conclude that they certainly were deserving of playing for a National Championship? Also, limiting it to 4 teams (for now) will certainly keep the regular season as exciting as it is now, if not more so.

It wouldn't be a perfect setup, but I would welcome this change.

[buckeyejim]

Right now the BCS rewards just two schools at the end of the season. This system is twice as good as the current system because it gives 4 schools the oppontunity to play for the national championship.

When Division 1-AA began their playoff format in 1978, it was between just 4 schools (Florida A&M; UMass; Jackson St.; Nevada)

When Division III began their playoff format in 1973, it was between just 4 schools.

When Division II began their playoff format in 1973, it was between just 8 schools.

Let this happen and down the road it might expand.

[EvilVodka]

"The four top-seeded teams would play in two "semifinal" games, using the existing bowls - Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and the current BCS title game on a rotating basis - with the two winners meeting in a newly created bowl. Theoretically, it would leave less argument over who's No. 1.

According to several sources, no existing bowl, such as the Cotton, Gator or Outback, would be transformed into the championship game because no conference wants to lose an existing postseason opportunity for its member teams."

This sounds all screwed up to me...

The BCS already has the title game...why would they have to re-create it? Most likely, they would have to either create a new Jan 1 bowl (possible semifinal bowl) or else recruit the Cotton, Gator, or Outback to stay at 10 teams...

Also, I don't see the need to loosen the Rose Bowl grip on the PAC 10/Big 10 champs...or rotate semifinal games for that matter...why not have #1 and #2 simply host the semifinal games in their respective bowls...?

For example:

#1 Ohio State hosts #4 in the Rose Bowl
#2 Florida hosts #3 Michigan in the Sugar Bowl

If they do this, lets hope they do it right

jan 1
Rose Bowl
Orange Bowl
Fiesta Bowl
Sugar Bowl
Newly Created Bowl!!

jan 8
BCS National Championship

[buckeyejim]

"The four top-seeded teams would play in two "semifinal" games, using the existing bowls - Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and the current BCS title game on a rotating basis - with the two winners meeting in a newly created bowl. Theoretically, it would leave less argument over who's No. 1.

According to several sources, no existing bowl, such as the Cotton, Gator or Outback, would be transformed into the championship game because no conference wants to lose an existing postseason opportunity for its member teams."

This sounds all screwed up to me...

The BCS already has the title game...why would they have to re-create it? Most likely, they would have to either create a new Jan 1 bowl (possible semifinal bowl) or else recruit the Cotton, Gator, or Outback to stay at 10 teams...

Also, I don't see the need to loosen the Rose Bowl grip on the PAC 10/Big 10 champs...or rotate semifinal games for that matter...why not have #1 and #2 simply host the semifinal games in their respective bowls...?

For example:

#1 Ohio State hosts #4 in the Rose Bowl
#2 Florida hosts #3 Michigan in the Sugar Bowl

If they do this, lets hope they do it right

jan 1
Rose Bowl
Orange Bowl
Fiesta Bowl
Sugar Bowl
Newly Created Bowl!!

jan 8
BCS National Championship

What would you do if the Big Ten Champion and the Pac-10 Champion were #1 & #2? Which conference gets to use the Rose Bowl?

Frankly, I'd like to see all the bowl tie-ins eliminated. That way you could have all sorts of match-ups. Oops, that make too much sense.

[EvilVodka]

What would you do if the Big Ten Champion and the Pac-10 Champion were #1 & #2? Which conference gets to use the Rose Bowl?

Frankly, I'd like to see all the bowl tie-ins eliminated. That way you could have all sorts of match-ups. Oops, that make too much sense.

The Pac 10 champ would host the Rose Bowl, and the Big 10 champ could host the newly created bowl

--OR--

A special rule could be made that allows the PAC 10 champ to play the Big 10 champ as a semifinal game in the Rose Bowl if both champs are eligible

Otherwise you could have situations where #1 Ohio State might host #4 LSU in the Sugar Bowl, or #1 USC could host #4 Miami in the Orange Bowl...does that sound fair?

[CJHawkeyes]

And the more I think of it, the more I think that with a 4-team playoff, the voters would tend to try to "bump up" an unbeaten mid major into a 4th spot in the case of Boist St '06 or Utah '04. Say there are three clear top three teams from BCS Conferences, all with one or no losses...and every other BCS team has two or more losses. I could see voters purposely "bumping up" an unbeaten mid major to the 4th playoff spot over a two loss, or even one loss BCS team if need be to make sure that they gave them a chance. I'm not saying that it's right, and this scenario further proves what a sham "voting" is, but well...it is what it is.

Bottom line - I think arguing over who finishes 4th/5th with the 5th best team being left out is better than arguing over who finishes 2nd/3rd with the 3rd place team being left out as we have now. How many times can you look at a team that didn't finish in the top four of any poll and conclude that they certainly were deserving of playing for a National Championship? Also, limiting it to 4 teams (for now) will certainly keep the regular season as exciting as it is now, if not more so.

It wouldn't be a perfect setup, but I would welcome this change.

It goes without saying that I think subjectivity should not be used to determine the four playoff teams. It still baffles me that polls have more credibility with fans than the idea of objective rules let alone a particular set of rules. That said, as long as the playoff is small enough that an unbeaten season cannot guarantee a shot, one of two things must happen. Either rank all teams best to worst record and let everyone play for an unbeaten season with the knowledge that five or more unbeatens puts you at risk of being on the oustide looking in if your schedule is the weakest in the group or do not allow teams to play for an unbeaten season as if its a guarantee by adopting rules that encourage, if not demand, teams to play Florida rather than FIU.

[Ma_Gric]

An implementation of a 4-team playoff would be ideal for the game of college football. It would avoid the, "#3 is more worthy of a national title appearance than #2" dispute. 2000 Miami, 2001 Oregon, and 2004 Auburn would all have been given legitimate chances at securing a national title.

Most importantly, the mystique of the bowl games is not tainted by an 8 or 16 team playoff. Of course the Rose Bowl would run into difficulty with its desire to match up the Big 10 champ vs. the Pac 10 champ. However, every team with a bowl invite will have an opportunity to finish its season on a high note. Furthermore, teams undeserving of a chance to play in the title game (2-loss teams who elevate their ranking with a late season surge) will not interfere with the playoff system, as happens every year in the NCAA basketball tournament.

It definitely wouldn't hurt to try this. It's what college football has needed for decades.

[EvilVodka]

According to what they're saying, I'm guessing this system would have looked something like this for the last 10 years:

PLAYOFF GAMES IN BOLD

1996
jan 1
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Arizona State vs. #3 Florida
Bowl X: #1 Florida State vs. #4 Ohio State
Rose Bowl: #23 Texas vs. #7 Penn State

jan 2
Sugar Bowl: #9 Tennessee vs. #6 Nebraska

jan 3
Orange Bowl: #5 BYU vs. #13 Virginia Tech

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Pasadena, CA

1997
jan 1
Sugar Bowl: #2 Michigan vs. #3 Tennessee
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Nebraska vs. #4 Florida State
Rose Bowl: #5 North Carolina vs. #7 Washington State

jan 2
Bowl X: #20 Syracuse vs. #16 Colorado State

jan 3
Orange Bowl: #6 UCLA vs. #8 Kansas State

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Bowl X, wherever

1998
jan 1
Sugar Bowl: #1 Tennessee vs. #4 Ohio State
Orange Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Kansas State
Rose Bowl: #9 Wisconsin vs. #5 UCLA

jan 2
Fiesta Bowl: #6 Texas A&M vs. #10 Tulane

jan 3
Bowl X: #15 Syracuse vs. #8 Florida

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Glendale, AZ

1999
jan 1
Orange Bowl: #1 Florida State vs. #4 Alabama
Rose Bowl: #2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 Nebraska

jan 2
Sugar Bowl: #5 Tennessee vs. #6 Kansas State

jan 3
Fiesta Bowl: #7 Wisconsin vs. #22 Stanford

jan 4
Bowl X: #12 Marshall vs. #8 Michigan

jan 8
BCS National Championship at New Orleans, LA

2000
jan 1
Bowl X: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Miami
Rose Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Washington

jan 2
Orange Bowl: #14 TCU vs. #5 Virginia Tech

jan 3
Sugar Bowl: #7 Florida vs. #11 Notre Dame

jan 4
Fiesta Bowl: #17 Purdue vs. #6 Oregon State

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Miami, FL

2001
jan 1
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Nebraska vs. #3 Colorado
Bowl X: #1 Miami vs. #4 Oregon
Rose Bowl: #9 Stanford vs. #8 Illinois

jan 2
Sugar Bowl: #13 LSU vs. #16 Michigan

jan 3
Orange Bowl: #10 Maryland vs. #5 Florida

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Pasadena, CA

2002
jan 1
Sugar Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #3 Georgia
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Miami vs. #4 USC
Rose Bowl: #5 Iowa vs. #6 Washington State

jan 2
Bowl X: #7 Oklahoma vs. #15 West Virginia

jan 3
Orange Bowl: #14 Florida State vs. #9 Notre Dame

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Bowl X, wherever

2003
jan 1
Sugar Bowl: #2 LSU vs. #3 USC
Orange Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Michigan
Rose Bowl: #5 Ohio State vs. #7 Florida State

jan 2
Fiesta Bowl: #10 Kansas State vs. #8 Tennessee

jan 3
Bowl X: #9 Miami vs. #11 Miami OH

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Glendale, AZ

2004
jan 1
Orange Bowl: #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn
Rose Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Texas

jan 2
Sugar Bowl: #8 Virginia Tech vs. #21 Pitt

jan 3
Fiesta Bowl: #5 California vs. #13 Michigan

jan 4
Bowl X: #6 Utah vs. #7 Georgia

jan 8
BCS National Championship at New Orleans, LA

2005
jan 1
Bowl X: #2 Texas vs. #3 Penn State
Rose Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Ohio State

jan 2
Orange Bowl: #22 Florida State vs. #14 TCU

jan 3
Fiesta Bowl: #5 Oregon vs. #6 Notre Dame

jan 4
Sugar Bowl: #7 Georgia vs. #11 West Virginia

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Miami, FL

2006
jan 1
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 LSU
Bowl X: #2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan
Rose Bowl: #5 USC vs. #10 Oklahoma

jan 2
Sugar Bowl: #8 Boise State vs. #11 Notre Dame

jan 3
Orange Bowl: #14 Wake Forest vs. #6 Louisville

jan 8
BCS National Championship at Pasadena, CA
================================================== ================

The biggest parties to convince are the Rose Bowl, PAC 10, and Big 10...The Rose Bowl would have had these match-ups:
*1996: #23 Texas vs. #7 Penn State (+ BCS National Championship game)
1997: #5 North Carolina vs. #7 Washington State
1998: #9 Wisconsin vs. #5 UCLA
1999: #2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 Nebraska
2000: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Washington
*2001: #9 Stanford vs. #8 Illinois (+ BCS National Championship game)
2002: #5 Iowa vs. #6 Washington State
2003: #5 Ohio State vs. #7 Florida State
2004: #1 USC vs. #4 Texas
2005: #1 USC vs. #4 Ohio State
*2006: #5 USC vs. #10 Oklahoma (+ BCS National Championship game)

Not a bad round of games...assuming the BCS continued to rotate the championship game and rotated the semifinal games

As for the 5th bowl, or Bowl X, the BCS would either have to create a bowl, or recruit a current bowl despite what the article says....there's alot of great bowls and stadiums in Texas and Florida, so I'm guessing the new bowl would be from that pool...the stadium in Houston isn't a bad choice...Orlando and San Antonio are good choices too, although the Alamodome is kind of small

[GatorGrad]

GREAT stuff, EV. Thanks for putting that together. I like what I see. It takes care of a lot of the controversy such as Auburn '04, Michigan '06, and especially in 2000 and 2001. And looking at the teams that didn't get in to the 4-team playoff, there aren't many that have much to complain about. The only thing it doesn't fix is giving a potential unbeaten nonBCS team a shot such as Utah '04 or Boist St '06. But definitely better than the 2-team playoff that we have now and a step in the right direction IMO.