NCAA says yes to playoff? Does BCS Initiate?

Emmert has long said he expected changes to the BCS system and has repeatedly offered to help the BCS debate if they want it. The NCAA licenses bowl games but does not run them. It also has no direct authority over the BCS system.

But a small, four-team tournament could be the perfect remedy for what many still consider a flawed system.

"I see a lot of ways that a Final Four model could be successful," Emmert said

Would a 4 game playoff system really work, and will it help resolve the issue of who is the NC? The answer is as flawed as the current system is, the answer is both yes and no. Let's take this year, which I deem a steller year for a 4 game playoff. In all liklihood, it would have pitted #1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford and in the second game #2 Alabama vs. Ok State, which would have been some tremendous match ups to be sure, regardless of the outcome, and would surely settled this years debate on who was the champ, as they would have decided it on the field, not in a poll. I think there is little argumant that other teams not included in these final 4 that could make the argument they deserved over any of these 4. Pretty tight case for a plus 1 I would say.....not so fast.

Step back in time to 2010 now. There were 3 undefeated teams, Auburn, Oregon and TCU followed by 4 one loss teams from power conferences (OSU, MSU, Wisc, and Stanford). We all know how the BCS loves to fill thier stadiums, and although the #1 and #2 seeds were shoe in's, not so fast for little old TCU, who let me remind you played their hearts out at the Rose Bowl and beat arguably the hotest team in the nation, Wisconsin, who was just crushing evreybody. Let the arguments begin who get the last 2 slots, and just looking at this and the way the non-BCS schools are treated today, does the BCS find a way to get TCU dropped to #5 and out of the playoff. Speculation, I know, but don't those 4 - 1 loss teams think they have a legitimate beef? I would say only for the last spot, but will the BCS, Harris, and AP polls be so subjective with a 4 team playoff? Yes, I am saying the poll voters will not vote the same. Easy to vote for TCU 3rd in the current format, but when the power conferences get together, what happens then? If for some reason TCU was left out of the top 4, then what we have here is still a flawed system, run and controlled by the BCS and Big Conferences. That is why a playoff can, in my opinion, both help and hurt the process. If the playoff system becomes something that the rules change on how we vote for teams, then we really haven't fixed the problem. We have enhanced it for the Big Guys stage, nothing more.

In addition, does the BCS even decide to initiate a plus 1 format? They are getting richer each year with the current format and unless a way can be kept to keep their pockets full, this plus 1 system may never happen. Exactly why the NCAA has no control of off their own programs playoff system may be the biggest flaw off all. I am intresetd to here all of your views on this, so lets keep the momentum going for change.

Restore 44

Obviously the answer is a playoff involving every Division 1 team.

I also like the plus one format. It keeps the bowl games, which is a part of college football. I hope the BCS would add another BCS Bowl game, the Cotton Bowl. The semi-final games could rotate between the 6 BCS Bowl games, with the NCG.

What I miss, and maybe it is just me, was sitting at home on New years seeing all the meaningful games and knowing pretty much on this day who the national Champs was. Now we play it so far out might as well invite the next recruiting class to play. All momentum is gone and adding on another 8-10 days after the new Years games just doesn't make sense to me. We forget that the teams practice all this time, and you take alot of hits, bumps and bruises in practice.

I think it should be a four game playoff with a few rules.


1. A conference can only have one team eligible for post season play. 
I think the SEC is already setup to be able to pick its best team. I understand Alabama got a second chance and won but this sport isn't about second chances. With so many college teams we can't have do overs.
 
2. Using the current ranking system the best 4 teams, that follow rule 1, enter the post season.
 The 5th place team will complain but the majority of the country won't care. 


3. The left out teams go to bowl games.  
I like seeing teams play from other conferences that are considered even with one another. 

I think the SEC is already setup to be able to pick its best team. I understand Alabama got a second chance and won but this sport isn't about second chances. With so many college teams we can't have do overs.

---

This year was a classic example of why I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'm not punishing the #2 team in the country for playing in the same conference as the #1 team. If we're having a 4-team playoff, then top 4 teams should go whether it's 4 conference champs or 4 Big East teams, I don't care. I want the best of the best showing they can beat each other for a crown, not some watered down PAC-12 champ because the SEC or Big 12 already has a team in.

This year was a classic example of why I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'm not punishing the #2 team in the country for playing in the same conference as the #1 team. If we're having a 4-team playoff, then top 4 teams should go whether it's 4 conference champs or 4 Big East teams, I don't care.

I agree. There is a reason there is no rule against it now.  Any rule that would preclude any otherwise eligible team from being in a playoff is a step backwards in determining the national champion. I believe that two of the biggest reasons that we are having this conversation now is because we had two teams from the same conference and the one that would have been left out seems clearly to be the better team, and because there were other teams that could make a case for being considered. A playoff would have made things a little clearer this year, but not if you had excluded the team that many (rightly or wrongly) thought was the only team that could compete with the then #1 team. It should not be detemined by marketing just because some one would "like to see" a different game, so the time is right to get on your commisioners and presidents and demand a playoff.

 The national championship game is not a game between conferences, it is a game between teams. If a playoff indicates that they are in the same conference so be it.

If there were enough interconference games being played, I wouldn't be averse to doing away with conference championship games all together in favor of more than a 4, 6 or 8 team playoff. But I understand the reasons it can't happen.

I agree. There is a reason there is no rule against it now.  Any rule that would preclude any otherwise eligible team from being in a playoff is a step backwards in determining the national champion. I believe that two of the biggest reasons that we are having this conversation now is because we had two teams from the same conference and the one that would have been left out seems clearly to be the better team, and because there were other teams that could make a case for being considered. A playoff would have made things a little clearer this year, but not if you had excluded the team that many (rightly or wrongly) thought was the only team that could compete with the then #1 team. It should not be detemined by marketing just because some one would "like to see" a different game, so the time is right to get on your commisioners and presidents and demand a playoff.

 The national championship game is not a game between conferences, it is a game between teams. If a playoff indicates that they are in the same conference so be it.

If there were enough interconference games being played, I wouldn't be averse to doing away with conference championship games all together in favor of more than a 4, 6 or 8 team playoff. But I understand the reasons it can't happen.

It should be limited to conference champions imo.  The regular season in cfb is a valuable commodity.  In the case of LSU and Alabama this year, let them play in the SEC CCG to decide which team moves forward.  Win your conference for a chance to win the national championship.  Don't win your conference and you don't get that chance.  It's pretty simple and for the most part that's the way it was done back in the old bowl days prior to the BCS.

It should be limited to conference champions imo.  The regular season in cfb is a valuable commodity.  In the case of LSU and Alabama this year, let them play in the SEC CCG to decide which team moves forward.  Win your conference for a chance to win the national championship.  Don't win your conference and you don't get that chance

If we are talking about the system we have now, lobby to have the rules changed to limit it to only one team from a conference. It's not that there just isn't a rule in place to stop it. There is a rule that actually forsaw that this could be the case. This year alone should prove that it can be the case.
If you are talking about limiting it to two teams from the same conference after a playoff is implemented, why would you place ANY restrictions on who should be able to participate in the playoffs. 
 

It's pretty simple and for the most part that's the way it was done back in the old bowl days prior to the BCS.

You're right. It was simple, and settled nothing. Which is the reason we now have the BCS, and the reason we are now arguing for playoffs.

It's really a moot point though. Television money and conferences protecting their turf are going to decide what changes will be made. What you or I want is going to take a back seat unless we can find a way to convince them otherwise. As it is now, they know they are the only game in town.

if it is only four teams there is gonna be problems.there has to be at least 8 teams involved to make it legit.i don't know why the ncaa keeps dragging there feet on this maybe they should just not be involved and let an outside entity organize it.

The NCAA will be making recommendations for a possible change in the BCS in a few months, and have considered over 60 scenarios [I hope they have seen mine.

The current thoughts are open to 4 teams, a.k.a. "plus-one", and all the BCS conferences seem ready to talk.

All those who have read my posts will recall, December Dream . . . Qualifying for the Final BCS Rankings, does have at least 70 schools/teams involved in a Qualifying Round.

If your happy with only 4 schools/teams participating in this playoff, then you will most likely be pleased with the results of the NCAA.

If you think there should be more than 4 schools/teams in any playoff scenario, then check out my blogs on my profile page here on CBS Sportsline and consider this as involving at least as many schools/teams as there are BOWL Berths. If you really want to read my book, leave me a private message here at CBS Sportsline with your e-mail address and I will send you my pdf version   [with out the Appendix showing the Final Rankings of the BCS, as that would require 11 additional pdf's].

And you all know the scenario . . .

This book is detailed to present a QUALIFYING ROUND as the 12th game of the season. NO EXTRA GAMES. Instead of having a scheduled opponet for this 12th regular season game, we have all the top teams/schools, up to and equal to as many Bowl berths [35 Bowls=70 teams/schools] play the teams/schools of PERCEIVED EQUAL STRENGTH. Since two-thirds of the BCS voters are humans, and we all know there is some prejudice when people vote; and the computer vote is non-emotional and has a fixed criteria; this system would filter the pretenders from the contenders.

The schedule would be simple, [no rocket science here] having #1 host #2, #3 hosts #4, #5 hosts #6, etc., all the way down to #69 hosting #70. [35 bowls]

This would be the 12th game of the regular season which would be played 10 days to 14 days after the Thanksgiving weekend.

This could create a NEW profit center for all the participating teams/schools, and would cover the costs for the teams/schools to travel as they would to any away game.

The biggest arguement is, why should #1 have to play #2 in this QUALIFYING ROUND? Again, let's look at the voters, who are human, and prejudices may have not necessairily presented an accurate account of who is #2 or #3 for that matter, as we have seen in previous BCS decision making processes.

and the top 20 reasons to use my scenario . . .

This solution will be the best possible, and here are 20 reasons why my proposed format can work:
1.Provides the next progressive step in determining who should play in the BCS Bowls.
2.Justify subjective rankings with more meaningful games.
3.A system where EVERYBODY WINS! Teams, Conferences, Schools, Fan[atic]s, Broadcasting Companies, Congress/Senate, etc.
4.Provides a process of elimination before Bowl berths are filled.
5.Allows all 11 Conferences and Independents to EARN their just positions in BCS Bowls.
6.Reduces human subjective factor out of ratings.
7.Lets Titan battle Titan on the field of play, by letting the teams play the game!
8.Pits top ranked teams to play opponents of perceived equal strength.
9.Leaves no room on regular season schedule to play that "cream puff" team.
10.Gives us games we could have never had the foresightedness to have scheduled.
11.Reduces the opinions of Coaches and Harris Pollsters with reality results.
12.Provides tie-breakers with immediate results.
13.Keeps the Bowl System in tact.
14.Keeps amount of games being played the same.
15.Meets Government passed regulations by providing one round of playoffs.
16.Insures Fair Play for all 120 teams to earn BCS Bowl berth.
17.Provides additional profit centers for participating teams.
18. Provides funds for team travel to unscheduled games.
19.Cost effective.
20.Results effective

No other talked about playoff can do what my solution claims. READ IT and you can be the Judge! I appreciate your support.

Go to www.bbotw.com to read the reviews and order it Today!

As much as I'd love to see a plus 1 in 2013 it won't happen untill 2014 IMHO.

Iamagoldenflake wants to have a playoff to determine the National Champion even if it is a playoff that doesn't involve the best teams in the country.  Be careful folks.  They walk amongst us.

This year was a classic example of why I couldn't possibly disagree more. I'm not punishing the #2 team in the country for playing in the same conference as the #1 team. If we're having a 4-team playoff, then top 4 teams should go whether it's 4 conference champs or 4 Big East teams, I don't care. I want the best of the best showing they can beat each other for a crown, not some watered down PAC-12 champ because the SEC or Big 12 already has a team in.

Exactly.  This season we were OK beating OSU for the 9th time in a row from having 1 unbeaten Conference Champion and 5 Multi- Loss Champs from the AQs.  So, even though Stanford has the #1 NFL ready QB and only 1 loss, bc they didn't win their conference they are automatically behind WVU?  Alabama is automatically worse then Clemson because they unfortunately had LSU in the same division?  That makes no sense. 

If you want to determine who is the best, why limit the participants.  If it has to be a Conf Champ, then you have 11 at most.  Sorry ND, with all of your tradition no matter what you have no chance.  No Conference, no Champion.  Lets assume the Sunbelt, Mac, Wac are left out every year.  That leaves a pool of only 8 to pick from to determine the NC.  So, 3 Loss Southern Miss is in the Playoff, but Bama isn't.

I know you are upset Bama made it to the NCG, and I know you think winning your conference should be a prerequisite.  However, anytime you are searching for the "best" number and have groups to choose from it is always possible the "best" 2,4,8,etc all reside in the same group, so to eliminate the others automatically throws away the goal trying to be accomplished.

Would a 4 game playoff system really work, and will it help resolve the issue of who is the NC? The answer is as flawed as the current system is, the answer is both yes and no. Let's take this year, which I deem a steller year for a 4 game playoff. In all liklihood, it would have pitted #1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford and in the second game #2 Alabama vs. Ok State, which would have been some tremendous match ups to be sure, regardless of the outcome, and would surely settled this years debate on who was the champ, as they would have decided it on the field, not in a poll.

I don't know about that if you are using a poll to put teams into the playoff, you are still relying on the polls and allowing them to control who the champion is by choosing who is in the playoff.  I think they need to have clear qualifications for the playoffs that have nothing to do with polls and you must win your conference for starters.  If they have a 16 team field then they can use polls to allow good 2nd teams in a conference into the mix, but if they are only using 4, then they should be conference winners period--Bama should never have been in the mythical championship nor a 4 team playoff.  A 4 team playoff doesn't allow all conferences a chance to represent, so they could use the polls to rank the 4 conference winners that would be in the playoff, so this year would have been Wisky, Oregon, Okie State, and LSU since the BEast, ACC, and MWC champs were far lower in rankings if I am remembering correctly.

  

Exactly.  This season we were OK beating OSU for the 9th time in a row from having 1 unbeaten Conference Champion and 5 Multi- Loss Champs from the AQs.  So, even though Stanford has the #1 NFL ready QB and only 1 loss, bc they didn't win their conference they are automatically behind WVU?  Alabama is automatically worse then Clemson because they unfortunately had LSU in the same division?  That makes no sense. 

Who says Bama was one of the top 4 teams in the country?  Biased polls?  Certainly not their resume as Oregon had a better resume even though they had 2 losses as they had better wins and their losses were good losses (one was the same as Bama had).  Sorry, but Oregons win over Stanford topped anything that Bama did all year as their claim to fame was Arky and nothing else really as PUS wasn't worthy of bragging about--Utah was as good a win.  Okie State obviously had a FAR better resume than Bama, so at best Bama may have had the 4th best resume, but I think Wisky had as good a resume and were also a conference champion.  I like Bama, but I don't like a team that I like being given something that they never deserved or earned. 


   


  

a plus one is a start, but I don't think is the final solution. A playoff system can, and would work. I don't get the idea of Bowl games having to go, and if they did, so what? Schools would make more money from a playoff system than playing in Bowls. And Also, teams that don't make the playoffs could play in those Bowls. we may say goodbye to a lot of crappy ones, but oh well.

If you are talking about limiting it to two teams from the same conference after a playoff is implemented, why would you place ANY restrictions on who should be able to participate in the playoffs. 


You are restricting teams by giving others second chances and devaluing the regular season in the process. If we had a 10 or more team playoff then I agree that multiple teams from a single conference could go. But when we are talking about a 4 team playoff I think second chances are a joke. Man up and win the first go around. I think the SEC is the best but it is hard to prove it when you don't allow the other conferences a shot. 

As much as I hate playoffs in football, we need a dog gone playoff. We need maybe a 4-8 team playoff. More than 8 is too many I think. How you choose the teams is the kicker, of course. There must be well defined rules and a conference championship MUST be rewarded or else why bother with conference championships if they are meaningless?

I agree, geneh, even though this rule would have left out my team, conference championships should count.