BCS Changes and "Alabama Rule"

[Bud Lee]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... am-playoff

[Bud Lee]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--bow ... ystem.html

[woundedknees]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--bow ... ystem.html

Wish my small business could have qualified for 501 status... What a deal!

[Kimber45]

If the goal of changing the BCS system is to appease college football fans who are unsatisfied at year's end that the best team actually won the MNC, then a four seed playoff is a pretty good solution.

If the goal is to create transparency, fairness and equal opportunity for college football teams, then a 64 (or at least 32) team playoff is simply a necessity.

Completely ignoring very sound arguments that a four or five round playoff makes football scheduling impracticable, with a 64 or 32 round playoff, lots of teams get in, and all of the arguments against the BCS system, i.e., lobbying, bias, politics, bribes(?) etc., become irrellevant. If your team can't make a 32 or 64 team cut, you're not going to win anyway, and no amount of unseemly Coach Mack Brown lobbying is going to make a difference.

Unfortunately, I think a four seed playoff is only going to exacerbate the same problems that are popular with the current BCS. Lobbying, etc., will intensify competition for the top four spots, and we West Coasters will continue to be disgusted by seeing four, five or six SEC teams in the BCS top 10. Last year I declined to watch a MNC game featuring two SEC teams. Imagine having three SEC teams finish in the BCS top 3. Why am I going to find that playoff scenario more interesting than a two SEC team MNC game?

As unpopular as the idea might seem, I think college football has grown too large. Winning the PAC and having the opportunity to play the Big-10 champ in the Rose Bowl should be enough challenge, and pressure, for a student athlete. After the season the media can argue about whether which major bowl winner is the best team. There is no law that says America must have some system that unquestionable decides a college football champion. Without the BCS, let alone the proposed playoff, power football programs would have incentive to schedule strong non-conference games instead of this four cupcake bullshit that goes on now.

Heck, I even think the scholarship limit should be reduced to 65. You get a two deep on offense (22), a two deep on defense (22) and twenty one more bodies to work with. Add in 30 walk-ons for a roster limit of 95. Teams that currently have zero hope for making the MNC game, let alone a BCS or major bowl game, would now have access to quality PSA talent. More competitive teams makes college football better. Not a four game playoff.

My .02.

Like it, love it, or suck it.

[uodux1212]

If the goal of changing the BCS system is to appease college football fans who are unsatisfied at year's end that the best team actually won the MNC, then a four seed playoff is a pretty good solution.



Unfortunately, I think a four seed playoff is only going to exacerbate the same problems that are popular with the current BCS.

This x 1000.

Although this format would greatly benefit Oregon should they ever make the "playoffs". D coordinators around the country are already losing sleep over the thought of only a week or two to prepare for Chips O.

[UOducksTK1]

Four team playoff solves nothing. AT LEAST an 8 team playoff. Honestly, with business aside, for pure enjoyment purposes, a 16 team playoff would be so freaking awesome. But it won't ever happen.

[lukeyrid13]

I think there should be a 2 team per conference limit

[duck55]

I think there should be a 2 team per conference limit

I thought there was ----- 2 SEC-East and 2 SEC West