[Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to theBig-XII (sort of)

[Duane Feldman]

Personally, I like 12 teams in the playoffs -- this allows some of the major conference runnerups and 2-3 minor conference champs.9
First round:
Teams #1-4 get byes.
#5 hosts #12
#6 hosts #11
#7 hosts #10
#8 hosts #9

Round 2:
#1 hosts #8/9 winner
#2 hosts #7/10
#3 hosts #6/11
#4 hosts #5/12

Round 3 hosted by bowls:
#1 remaining v #4 remaining
#2 remaining v #3 remaining

Round 4:
two remaining teams.

The good of this plan:
Minimal travel for fans of teams (max two games exc #9-12)
Reason to play for position (home field, byes)
Only one home game per team 
8 teams host games
12 is better (IMHO) than 8 or 16

The bad:
Only three bowls involved.  Which three?  (of Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Rose)
What happens to remaining to remaining major bowl(s)?
With this plan, top twelve teams are out for all but the 3 bowls, so enough teams to support remaining bowls (six fewer teams available)?

But that is the reason we don't have a playoff, every system has disadvantages.

Duane Feldman




 



________________________________
From: Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>
To: Scott R Lawson <SLawson at uamail.albany.edu>; Husker List <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 10:54:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to theBig-XII (sort of)

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Scott R Lawson
<SLawson at uamail.albany.edu> wrote:

> Seriously though, I know this topic is a sore one for many and has
> probably been beat to death already, but can anyone enlighten me as to
> why the current system could not be replaced with a playoff system? I
> know one of the old arguments was having these kids playing too many
> games, but that seems silly when you see divisions that DO have playoffs
> seem to manage just fine with 15-16 games. Also, I know the bowls want
> their revenue, but wouldn't two or three more rounds of playoffs tied
> into existing bowl games make them even MORE money?
>
> Scott in NY

I suspect there will be others to pick at this carcass, but I'm
willing to take a few whacks at it.

The biggest structural drawback to a playoff system is the fact that
two of the major conferences don't have playoffs - Pac10 and Big11.
At least with the way the Big11 does things (I only assume the same
happens in the Pac10) where not every team plays each other team in
the conference, there's gonna be questions about who the conference
champ is.  I've heard that the Big11 has absolutely no desire to do
anything about that, and while I haven't heard anything about Pac10
feelings, they really haven't had to worry about it - its just been
USC lately.

But if you can resolve that issue, then the rest of the (non)arguments
come into play - it'll destroy the bowl system, it'll take the kids
out of school for too long, how do conferences share revenue from
these games, will the fans show up week after week, etc., etc.  The
only thing - and really the only thing - I want to see come out of
this if we do end up with some sort of playoff (8 teams seems the
best), is that the higher seeded team gets to play at home during the
playoffs, just like in the pros.  No moving everyone south to where a
greater advantage is given to a team playing closer to home (or as USC
did, playing in their neighborhood).  Make some of the warm teams move
north and put up with cold games in cold stadiums.  I know, I know,
makes for lousy TV, but after all, its football.  It wasn't intended
to be an indoor sport.  Or at least I don't think so.

Nick
-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Anatole France

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker