http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/ne...&type=lgns


I've seen a lot of formats, but this one makes the most sense. For the small conferences, outsiders would watch the conference championships and attendance would increase at more games. Seems like a win win and we'd really know who is the best team.

Even for the big games, you can call each game a different bowl and the advertisers would make money too. Sooo many good reasons for it.

That is perfect.

I thought of that years ago. Only thing I would change is moving the Final Four to neutral sites, I think bigger stadiums would be better for money.

This exact format has been suggested for years (on this board even), this isn't really news. None the less, at least people keep talking about it.

Eventually it will happen, as more old people who are set in their ways die (sounds bad, I know, but it's true), and younger fans who prefer the playoff get in positions where their opinion matters it will be taken care of.

Just need to stay vocal.
Also, I agree with Bleeds, keep the final 4 neutral, maybe even final 8, could give it to the larger bowl games right now, might mean less complaining and more acceptance from them.

(12-08-2009 03:03 AM)clcfball11 Wrote:  That is perfect.

No it isn't. You can't just overhaul a whole system, and expect everyone to go along with it, no matter what you claim your intentions are. Especially when there is so much money involved. Somebody is bound to get screwed, it it will most likely be someone with less money and less political pull. Gee! That sounds familiar.

Wetzel's plan creates 15 post season games, and apparently only one ( the championship game) is played at a neutral site, determined in advance. That would take away many bowl games, and therefore, bowl sponsorship. Kiss all that bowl money goodbye. The first bowls to disappear would be those that take smaller schools, like the International Bowl.

It would also take four weeks of post season play, and that would not fly either.

Look were we have come, and take baby steps from there to avoid upsetting the apple cart. We now have a National Championship game played between #1 and #2 played after all the other bowl games. 12 years ago, we did not even have that, so that's progress.

The next step is to have two bowl games that are actually semi-final games, where #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3. The winners will meet in the championship game. #5 and #6 will complain that they got screwed, but it will still be a step in the right direction.

If you read the article he leaves the bowl system in place.

In what world is not better to have the 8th or 9th place team say they got screwed then the 2nd or 3rd place team? Talk about just eating up the bowl system propoganda, get it together Jon. Just because something has been in place for a long time doesn't mean it's OK. The system is broken.

Why would a playoff take value away from the smaller bowls??? Is the International bowl deciding anything? No the 4th place MAC team vs. a low Big East team? What does that decide? Nothing. The playoff doesn't diminish our bowl in any way. The only bowls that would care is the one who gets the national championship, all other bowls are meaningless anyways, and most could justify an argument saying the national championship is also meaningless.

I don't see what the problem is with establishing a playoff system while also offering 15-20 bowl games for other bowl qualified teams

(12-08-2009 10:47 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(12-08-2009 03:03 AM)clcfball11 Wrote:  That is perfect.

No it isn't. You can't just overhaul a whole system, and expect everyone to go along with it, no matter what you claim your intentions are. Especially when there is so much money involved. Somebody is bound to get screwed, it it will most likely be someone with less money and less political pull. Gee! That sounds familiar.

Wetzel's plan creates 15 post season games, and apparently only one ( the championship game) is played at a neutral site, determined in advance. That would take away many bowl games, and therefore, bowl sponsorship. Kiss all that bowl money goodbye. The first bowls to disappear would be those that take smaller schools, like the International Bowl.

It would also take four weeks of post season play, and that would not fly either.

Look were we have come, and take baby steps from there to avoid upsetting the apple cart. We now have a National Championship game played between #1 and #2 played after all the other bowl games. 12 years ago, we did not even have that, so that's progress.

The next step is to have two bowl games that are actually semi-final games, where #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3. The winners will meet in the championship game. #5 and #6 will complain that they got screwed, but it will still be a step in the right direction.

Way to not read the article.

That may be the best pro-playoff article I've ever read.

Here is the solution to the entire problem.

120 D1 teams
6 20 team conferences made up of 2 10 team divisions.
Conferences assigned geographically, reduces travel for teams and fans, also carries on traditional rivalries. For traditionalists out there the 6 BCS conference names will be retained. Big East, ACC, SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12 and PAC 10.
Schedule made up of a 9 game round robin in your division and 2 non-conference games.
The 12th game will be a conference championship, as well as crossover with the team from the other division of your conference. 1 plays 1, 2 plays 2 etc.
8 team play-off made up of the 6 conference champs, and 2 at large teams that must have won a division to be an at large.

I know it will never work. None of these will ever work, but it is fun to think about.

There is no reason the change conferences for this to work.

The only reason we don't see a change is simple.

The higher ups at the NCAA are totally in the pockets of the corporations that are paying for these bowls. You think NCAA directors aren't getting a piece somehow? Please

See the TCU-Boise St. game.