There may or may not be reasons why either party would consider that change. The main point being that there really isn't a way to enforce this type of thing. The ACC recently made major changes switching teams in and out. Other conferences may do the same in the future at their own discretion. No conference is ever going to give up their right to do that on their own time for their own reasons. So, any play-off plan that includes creating some body that has authority over all of the conferences on who is or isn't represented by them would be dead in the water, imo. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have theoretical merit. I just don't think it's something that the powers that be would ever agree to and put in place.Greydrake wrote:Well, ND plays in the Big East in basketball, the only thing that has kept them independent in football is the NBC contract, which doesn't look so promising for renewal. Frankly their relevance is getting lost, and a conference move may actually help them.
Which divisions? You mean other sports?SuperDuck wrote:I respectfully disagree. 16 teams works in most other divisions just fine.
It would work by seeding the play-offs with the most deserving teams, regardless of whether or not it leaves any conference completely unrepresented. Personally, I think that's the way it should be and it would encourage more fierce competition between all conferences. No team should be in simply because their conference made a sweet deal if it means that a better team is left out.SuperDuck wrote:Also, with there being 6 BCS conferences, as well as other conferences like the WAC, Mountain West, etc, how could an 8 team field possibly work? It couldn't, not with teams like Boise State and TCU undefeated this season.
If the season were over as of today, my proposal would seed the games like this (maybe slightly different if we weighted points formulas higher than wins):SuperDuck wrote:So who would the 8 teams be this year? Boot either Florida or Alabama and the Oregon/OSU loser and move Ohio State into the last slot? That's not very attractive at all.
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Virginia Tech
Fiesta Bowl: Alabama vs. Boise State
Orange Bowl: Texas vs. Cincinnati
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. TCU
Those all seem like good games to me.
I was meaning after the conference championships for a good reason. How conferences split up, determine champions, etc. is all autonomous and independent of the BCS. No conference is ever going to give up their right to structure that stuff however they see fit.SuperDuck wrote:With no conference championship games, who would advance to the playoffs, Florida or Alabama? Or were you talking about having the 8 team field chosen AFTER the conference championship games? Well, if we were going to have those, why not just eliminate them and play a larger field? That way teams from different conferences could match up against the rest of the field in opposite brackets. They could potentially play each other for the national championship that way, if they both win out.
Similar to moving teams in and out of conferences to make a play-off scheme work, it just makes the idea way less feasible to involve changes that over-ride the authority that conferences have. They just aren't going to agree to it.
My proposal is meant to avoid asking conferences to change anything. It just eliminates all human subjectivity from the process, all conference advantages and any incentive to schedule cupcakes to game the system. Also, it maintains the original bowl game identities so the same people can run them, tradition is maintained, etc. Only two additional play-off games would be needed to settle who plays for the NC game (call them the Eastern and Western Championships). I think it would be fair, unbiased and importantly is feasible given the way the powers that be are set up now.