Idea is as good (or at least as 'fair') as any out there, I think.....

..and great picture choice, BTW.....

Smart folks at the WSJ, eh?

I'd love to see that...college football could learn something from Europe in this case.

Would be interesting but UTEP's AD is right. No BCS school will vote for it. It also would have to be applied across the board, meaning basketball, baseball, track & field, ect, ect. I think a playoff system would be easier to impliment than this, though the concept is intriging.

(06-16-2010 08:05 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Would be interesting but UTEP's AD is right. No BCS school will vote for it. It also would have to be applied across the board, meaning basketball, baseball, track & field, ect, ect. I think a playoff system would be easier to impliment than this, though the concept is intriging.

No need to apply it across other sports at this time because the post-season format of the other sports negates the need.

Not a chance of it being adopted though.

In the EPL you only play your division within the league, you don't see lower division teams except in cups and challenges that don't impact your place in the EPL.

Schools are not going to give up control of their revenue sources, even if giving up control would mean more money. The current system is about making sure you make more money than the other guy more than it is about just increasing your own revenue regardless of what is going on around you. The first objective for the BIGS is to maintain the pecking order, not to maximize revenue. They have more money than they know what to do with already.

And they put UTEP in the top group but Memphis it a sub-group. They lost me there. UConn is in a sub-group too.

Yeah, this wouldn't increase cheating.

Pecking order is vital. By most conservative estimates a playoff is at a minimum 2X to 3X the value of the BCS. Equal opportunity though produces upsets and could endanger the order of things.

The presidents aren't going to support it unless you convince them this is the grand solution to anti-trust issues and commercialism because it opens the door to all based on merit. Problem is Texas doesn't want to end up affiliated with North Texas which is a great school but not their kind of people.

This assumes there are only 120 teams in the universe playing college football. How does Appalachian State get bumped up in this scenario? Montana? Villanova?

(06-16-2010 09:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Pecking order is vital. By most conservative estimates a playoff is at a minimum 2X to 3X the value of the BCS. Equal opportunity though produces upsets and could endanger the order of things.

The presidents aren't going to support it unless you convince them this is the grand solution to anti-trust issues and commercialism because it opens the door to all based on merit.

MOTHER OF ALL PLAYOFFS '10



RULES

---All eleven conference champions get bid.
---Next 13 highest BCS ranked schools get bid, total of 24.
---Highest 8 seeds get first round bye.
---Seeds 9-24 begin First round action at higher seed's home field on third Saturday of December.
---Sweet 16 would play on fourth Saturday of December, once again at higher seed's home field.
---Elite 8 would play first weekend of January. This would begin use of "BCS" bowls, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange.
---Final-Four would be second weekend of January, once again at 2 of the 4 "BCS" bowl sites.
---National Championship game would be, once again at 1 of the "BCS" bowl sites. Instead of 4+1, it would be 4+2+1.



FIRST-ROUND MATCHUPS
WEEK 1

#24 TROY at #9 GEORGIA TECH
#23 EAST CAROLINA at #10 IOWA
#22 CENTRAL MICHIGAN at #11 VIRGINIA TECH
#21 STANFORD at #12 LSU
#20 ARIZONA at #13 PENN STATE
#19 OKLAHOMA STATE at #14 BYU
#18 OREGON STATE at #15 MIAMI
#17 PITTSBURGH at #16 WEST VIRGINIA



SWEET 16
WEEK 2

(Pitt/West Virginia winner) at #1 ALABAMA
(Oregon State/Miami winner) at #2 TEXAS
(Oklahoma State/BYU winner) at #3 CINCINNATI
(Arizona/Penn State winner) at #4 TCU
(Stanford/LSU winner) at #5 FLORIDA
(Central Michigan/Virginia Tech winner) at #6 BOISE STATE
(East Caolina/Iowa winner) at #7 OREGON
(Troy/Georgia Tech winner) at #8 OHIO STATE



ELITE EIGHT
WEEK 3
Rose/Fiesta/Sugar/Orange


FINAL FOUR
WEEK4
(2 of the BCS bowls repeat host)


CHAMPIONSHIP
WEEK5
(1 of the BCS bowls repeat host)


SUMMARY

---This system would allow almost all of the other major bowl games outside of the "BCS" bowls to still serve a purpose, and for very good schools not making the tourney to still have a post-season.
---The "home game" format and the first round bye format are necessary to involve as many teams as I did. The reward of another home game has many benefits, financial or otherwise.
---In order for the major conferences to buy into a playoff, it would have to be seen as almost "rigged" in their favor. I believe first round byes, home field advantage, and multiple at-larges from each major conference, all based on strength of individual schools, is key to getting this passed.
---The major conferences will never go for a playoff that would guarantee equal representation to non-major conferences. You have to go to at least 24 teams to ensure that each major conference has at least 2 schools in the playoff on most years.
---Finally, the money generated by such a playoff would dwarf the basketball tourney revenues.

I would be all for any system that bounced the bottom feeding AQ BCS teams. The BCS is designed to protect the money and interest of the maybe elite 12 teams in this country. Some folks just get to enjoy the free ride because the truely elite teams have not found a better way to keep all the money.