ajcsportstalk

By GoNolz!!!

January 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

I would get rid of the BCS and have a 16 team playoff, just like every other level of college football. Play it in November and December, be done by Christmas. Football players don’t miss much class time for travel like basketball and baseball players, so it won’t affect academics. If you want to call some of the games by the name of bowl game, fine. Whatever works for you and the ‘tradition’ of the bowls. Most of the bowls have absolutely no tradition and I’m willing to trade the tradition of The Rose Bowl for a real national championship decided on the field.

BTW, this will never happen.

By Stephen-Dalton GA

January 10, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

As much as I dont like most everything Michael Adams does, I think what he said was a pretty good idea….Back to 11 games, the BCS 4 games as quarterfinals, with 2 games the next week, then the chamionship game after that….

Go Dawgs in 2008.

By Arnold Frantz

January 10, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

A playoff is a must. It should begin the first week after conference championships (2nd saturday in Dec). The field will be comprised of the top twelve teams, with the top four seeds getting a bye (rest time for conference championship games).All first round and quarterfinal games are at higher seed. Semifinal games are at the higher remaining seeds home field. Finals are played on neutral site. As for the bowls, still have them. There are plenty of well deserving teams that can still play in the major bowls.

By Bulldog Nation

January 10, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

There absolutely needs to be an 8 team playoff. We should follow the BCS rankings and take the top eight teams. 1v8 2v7 3v6 4v5 I don’t think anyone would say that the BCS would miss getting the best team in the top 8.

If the smaller conferences are worried about getting a team in…..they need to schedule great non-conference opponents and walk the dog in thier conference. Think about this. Our playoff would have included:

Ohio St. vs. Kansas LSU vs. USC Va.Tech vs. Missouri Oklahoma vs. Georgia

There may be an argument that West Virginia should get the chance, but if they wanted in, they should have beaten PITT in the last game of the season.

By Brian Bertrand

January 10, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

I have been trying to get my website - www.collegefootballsolution.com -publicity towards advocating a similar approach to UGA President Adams for over 2 years. As an avid LSU football season ticket holder who just returned from seeing my beloved Tigers win the national championship, I am thrilled that we won the title legitimately, yet via a methodolgy that does not give the fans of college football what they deserve (and what all other college sports fans have) - a truly accepted and undisputed national champion. Once again, as a Tiger fan I am thrilled, yet disgusted that our 2003 and 2007 titles are not universally accepted. This is unfair to all student athletes, the 119 participating universities and the die hard fans that financially and emotional back the great game of college football. WE MUST CHANGE THE SYSTEM ! AS FANS, WE DESERVE BETTER !!

Geaux Tigers! Brian Bertrand

By Sicem

January 10, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

The schools that dont want it are probably from weak conferences and realize that the would never have teams in the eight team playoff ie. Little 10 and Pac 1 plus 9. I think the playoff proposed by Dr. Adams is the best solution to a never ending controversy. I dont think it will happen however due to the fact that in most years the same eight or ten teams would be in the playoffs and the weak conferences would do backflips and spit gold plated nickles at the NCAA LOL!

By gtjacket81

January 10, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

The SEC thinks it’s the best conference. They should have a 12 game season where everybody plays everbody else. They should have their own 2 or 4 team playoff and crown their own National Champion.

By pffft

January 10, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

how about conference champs? win your conf or dont complain. as you said Bulldog Nation “walk the dog in thier conference” which uga didnt do. therefore west virginia would have played okla as they did and punished them. no matter what system they go with, someones feelings will get hurt. 16 team playoff #17 will be upset. top 10 ranking, #11 will whine. since the conference champ is supposed to be the best of the conference that seems simple. its the system the pros (all sports) and even ncaa basketball uses. then you keep the regular season meaningful too.

By Paul Hamilton

January 10, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

Its pretty simple how college football fans can get involved to make positive changes to the system. The BCS bowls are up for renewal soon, so when the bowl season get here next year and in 2009, you don’t watch any of the games!!! You unplug your television, take a nap or whatever you have to do to drop the ratings into the toilet bowl. We the fans control the system, but you have to be willing to step up to the plate. Imagine how quickly the BCS and schools around the country would step in line if everyone stopped watching.

It’s all about money people, and viewers=ratings=advertising dollars

By ET

January 10, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

UGA versus Southern Cal in the semi-finals with a Big Ten officiating crew. LSU versus Ohio State in the other semi-final with a Pac 10 officiating crew. Good bye, UGA. Good bye, LSU. Whoa, Nellie! We’ve got Ohio State and USC in the championship game.

By j

January 10, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

I totally endorse Adams plan, if only for the sake of getting some type of playoff system into football.

But I think a Final Four solution is probably more practical, at least in the short term.

Cut the regular season back to 11 games, require conference championship games for all conferences and then a final 4, so the max season is 14 games long, like it is now.

By PS

January 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

do it like the pros. all conference winners are in and then you have the wildcard teams. do it on won/loss records for home field advantage. that way every game during the season is important. cut the number of games down so you only play div 1A. no more div 1AA or div 11 teams. saturday is not the only day you can play football. play on friday and saturday for the playoffs. it needs to be decided on the field by teams who can make it, not by teams who think they can make it. if you want to, you can have lessor bowl games for all the runner ups. its going to boil down to money anyway.

By dougmo

January 10, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

By duke

January 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Does anyone else find any irony that the Duke president is against the program. Why would he even care, his team couldn’t win a division 3 championship.

By skipperg

January 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

They need to have a playoff with 8 teams. the 1st criteria is win at least your division or conference championship or shut up. Geaux Tigers

By BuckyP

January 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

If a compromise could be reached where the presidents can still get the TV money that bowls produce then any playoff format may work. If not, then it will stay as is.

By J.D.

January 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Adams is right. The number 9 ranked team has no claim on the national title. The 8 best teams in the country should be invited without consideration given to their conference affiliation. If the SEC has 3 of the top 8 teams, they should have 3 teams in the playoff. Hawaii may win their conference, but they have no business charading as a contender simply because they beat Fresno St. and Nevada.

And LSU fans across were relieved when a struggling UT team beat KY, thereby eliminating a surging UGA team from the SEC championship game. If not for BCS shenanigans rigging the final match-up UGA would have given the business to what would be an average OSU team in the SEC.

Yes, UGA lost to SC, but they did so when SC was a top 10 team. USC lost to Stanford. No excuse.

By brooksdawgs

January 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

I like Adams’ idea but it has a fundamental flaw. Beginning the playoffs after a 5 - 7 week layoff is still not crowning the true championship team.

Here is my idea similar to one already posted and keeps the bowl system alive and well.

I personally think that 8 teams is to few so I would go to a 12 team playoff.

Every conference must have a conf. championship game to be played the first Saturday of December. Basketball does it so can football.

The top 4 ranked teams regardless if you are a conf. champion has a first round bye and are guaranteed a spot in the playoff. You get your ranking by averaging the Harris, Coach’s, AP and Master Coach’s Pool. Throw out the computers. You can’t say conf. champions deserve an automatic bye or even a spot in the playoff’s due to an upset or a weak conf. having a 7-5 or 8 - 4 team as their conf. champion. Example FSU in 2002 or 2003.

The remaining 8 teams are selected by a selection committee and are seeded depending on their combined rankings from the Harris, Coach’s and AP. Throw out the computers as it is nonsense. Just look at the final computer rankings of the year.

First round games are played 2nd week of Dec. matching seeds 5 - 12. Games are held at the higher seeds home stadium.

Second round games are played 3rd week of December matching winners of Round 1 with seeds one through 4. Again games held at team’s home stadium.

Semifinals are held 4th week of December at 2 neutral sites.

Championship game is played after all bowls have finished which should give the two team’s a week off but no more than one week off. Injuries help determine the best TEAM in football.

Now on to the bowl games.

If you are not part of the 12 teams in the playoff bowls can send out invitations to those teams. If you want to keep the big bowls those bowls can choose and invite teams to their bowls after teams lose in the playoff.

Personally if there is a playoff I see no need for the bowl games. Yes it’s nice but a playoff trumps those games. Just look at the stadiums. Other than the Sugar, Chik-fil-a, Music City, Rose and maybe one or two others the stadiums were no more than half filled. If not for TV dollars these bowls are not successful anymore.

This is my idea now bash away.

By it's pretty simple

January 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

condense all the conferences into 8 total conferences. have each conference determine a conference champion. those 8 conference champions play in a bracketed playoff. the seeding is determined by the polls.

By quicknole

January 10, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

The first thing that needs to be done is to kick Duke University’s president out of the consversation. In my opinion, they don’t factor in. They are a pathetic, pompus school….

By Charles C. Cox

January 10, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

I would go with 16 teams - It adds one extra round and would include enough quality that anyone rank higher than 16 shouldn’t reasonably have a chance with the the cedes 1-16;2-15;3-14;etc. Teams ranked 9th or 10th with howl, plus it will not penalize one conference if it has a number of strong teams.

By JDW

January 10, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Hey ET you need to phone home for the news, LSU played OSU and beat them pretty soundly. As for what to do next, 8 teams seems the most workable at the moment and some there should be some established process for selecting the teams that is transparent and as unbiased as possible. Did you see the votes of the coaches? Many of those votes are about nothing more than padding the pockets of thier respective conferences. I don’t see any way active coaches can be an unbaised part of the process. I would prefer some combination of an expanded Harris Poll and computer rankings to select the 8 highest ranking teams regardless of conference standing.

By Scott

January 10, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Actually, you could use the existing bowls as venues for the playoffs. If you watched any of the “lower” bowl games you could see a lot of empty seats. Imagine how well they would be attended if the two teams playing had decent records (no 6-6 or 7-4 teams) and the winner was going to advance! The local convention bureaus and corporate sponsors would then have a real showcase for the bowl game…it would actually mean something. It’s amazing that they can’t see that. It’s also amazing that we keep getting the same old “they’ll miss too much school time” argument from the powers that be (including Adams, read his reasons for not supporting it in the past) when they all know that we know it’s a smokescreen. If a playoff is good enough for other football divisions and for every other major (and minor) sport in the NCAA why isn’t it good enough for Division 1 (or whatever they call it now)? Oh, I forgot…it’s the money! Imagine how much more they could make if they went to the playoff system.

By No Dawgs Here

January 10, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

I think a 16 team tournament would be best. Take the winners from each conference and some “at-large” teams. Like UGA would have been this year, and have them play each other. Winner moves on loser goes home. Yes, it will add 4 games to the season, but hey just think of the extra cash the NCAA will get. They would be idiots not to go for this.

By No Dawgs Here

January 10, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Wasn’t Michael Adams against a “play-off” system last year? Seems ironic he now has changed his mind. I’m sure that if UGA would have “wiggled” their way into the national championship game and won, he would not have said crap. What a whining loser! Here’s a news flash UGA fans!! If you dont’ win your conference, you don’t derserve to play in the national championship game. Get a life. Michael Adams, needs to quit whining and shut up!

By MGZ

January 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Fixing the BCS

By BCS GURU

January 10, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

* I would have a 8 team plus one playoff. 8 and 9 seed play in game. The 8 vs 9 game will be played at a current BCS site. THe winner would play the one seed at a current BCS site along with the other three games. This would make five games played at the BCS sites with one BCS site having had two games played at their site. The next week there would be two games played at two BCS sites. The winner would play at the BCS site that haven;t already had two games played at their site. This would alternate every year. Each current BCS bowl site would have two games played at their sites. Alot of money for the economy and everyone is happy*

By pffft

January 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

ive always been amazed when people say well they lost early in the season to a team that was ranked top ten that week. so they were early season over rated, doesnt make the loss better than once we found out they really sucked, ala michigan. uga lost to SC and Tenn. thats why they didnt play LSU. shame cause they really did get it together at the end of the season and it would have been fun to watch them in a playoff the way they played late. but the season is a whole, not just the last month of the season. no shenanigans kept uga out of the nc game. they made thier own destiny with early loses in conference. hopefully for them they keep thier focus next season. they win out and still dont make the nc game, then you can complain.

By timmythebrave

January 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

To all haters, All true college football fans want a national championship decided on the field and not by a computer. I guess you think that Auburn didn’t deserve a chance a few years ago. Talk about the subject and stop trying to talk crap about the dawgs. You sound like jealous idiots.

By jw

January 10, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

We watched writers manipulate the polls over the last 3 weeks of the season to make sure that the top market teams had high rankings, which equals high BCS numbers - Poor ole Kansas, Missouri, Hawaii had to nearly sell their souls to the devil to even get a ranking as high as they got. Seems to me the flaw in the BCS is letting certain groups determine the top 25 every week. Missouri gets a #1 ranking, loses, then nearly drops out of site - that is just wrong how the pollsters decide who is in the national playoff picture. Take some of the weight off the rankings and give the strength of schedule a little more weight - and honestly take the best teams. LSU did what they were supposed to do, but it was a forgone conclusion that they were going to be in the championship game - every one with a vote made sure of that - a feel good story - New Orleans, LSU, tragedy, triumph - the score in the game means nothing anymore - get rid of that variable by not placing so much emphasis on the rankings - that way a corporate boardroom doesn’t always determine who plays and to some extent, who loses - plus - with so many bowl games - if the Rose Bowl really has that much clout, give them the National Championship game and finish everything around Jan. 1 - like you are supposed to do - that way the true teams will always get to play for the title and some of the arguing will go away - this ought to get everyone fussing!

By Sooner Nation

January 10, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

I completely agree with a playoff systems starting earlier in Dec. These teams don’t need 3-5wks off.

However it’s funny as HELL that Adams has been, one year against the next for?? WTF ohh, ohh we UGA have a stake in the fire this year… Typical SEC more so GA…

By pffft

January 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

if the uga supporters can talk up thier team the so called haters will try to educate them. i said they were a good team. but not good enough to win thier conference and that is why they were not in nc game. thats why i say conf winners. even with the comp rantings they still use the old fashion, popularity polls to award points. take out the coaches and writers inflated ratings and let the players settle it.

By amazing

January 10, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Require championship game to be between conference champions. Require the Big 10, Pac 10, and Big East play a championship game. Tell Notre Dame either join a conference and be a part of the system, or you are out.

By Greg

January 10, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

This is simple…either put a playoff in or take out ALL of the other playoffs for all the other sports

By Reality Check

January 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

One big problem is the travel of the fans. If there are 3 or four rounds of playoffs, how will the fans plan for and travel to the games? If you think your team will make the national championship, will you travel 3 weeks in a row? It would also require booking flights and hotel rooms with less than a weeks notice. For smaller divisions with a limited fan base, this is okay. I want to see how UGA figures out which of their 90,000 fans gets tickets to each round.

By Billy

January 10, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

2 points…

firstly,,in response to the people about losing early in season….i’ll take two teams as examples===>LSU and UGA….you see people,,,when you are ranked highly in preseason and look great on paper,,,you are supposed to care of buisiness and at least IMPROVE during the season from the first part as you are a little rusty and have not really been battle tested yet….improving in that i mean in all aspects=====>coaching,,,desire,,heart,,talent and overall getting better as a team…..unfortunately,,,lsu did not do this….they started strong as well as they should per pundits referring to thier team on paper……..LSU got in to the status quo or even playing beneath thier ability on paper with barely winning the middle and end of season and ultimately losing to a non-ranked opponent the last game of the season in arkansas while #1…..this is not a great team to me and others but just merely a good one….in other words,,,just deserves the credit and recognition that they get on paper not in overall performance……UGA on the other hand,,,,came into 2007 with a young team not so with the talent on paper the other teams had in the country….they lost a couple of games early THEN turned it around with heart,,motivation,,,talent (coaching and players)and went out and handily beat their last seven opponents…..this,,to me,,,is a team that had a great season and a great team of 2007….people great teams get better as the season progresses=====>not status quo or worse…..uga,,,tenn and lsu had same sec record at the end before title game BUT THE DIFF is the dogs ended up a great team not a good team…..really have to understand the whole procees and factors that go into the description of a great team=====>not just a team that stacks up great on paper……

secondly,,,the bcs process is a theory……i know adams and at least the other presidents should know the diff between theory and science…oftens times theories work as plan but believe me EVENTUALLY not as planned and that’s why they are theories…..it might work,,,for example,,,20 years and then the 21st year totally be blown out of the water…..it is NOT fair the outcome (this being the teams) to suffer from the year it did not work…..college football needs to crown an undisputed champion year end and year out…..Dr. Adams has been watching this theory since it was implicated and it took this year to convince him it’s flawed====>had to let it play out to have something to analyze…..i think those people that say it’s not flawed has benefited from current system or does not want play off system as they think would downgrade the image of universities across the land=====>these people are stuck in the past and not willing to embrace change=====>college football is big time so get over it people…..Dr Adams,,,,sure he saw that UGA would have gotten chance at a national title this year with playoff====>they definately deserved it……his intentions might be to right a flawed system (theory) for the good of all universities that think it’s flawed…..

As for the prima donna universities that get the high ranking based what is on paper and tradition from the media year end and year out,,,you might want to start to try to learn that being a great team involves more than just having it tagged to your forehead=====>you might,,,for a change,,, have to earn it…..

By timmythebrave

January 10, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

pffft, when I addressed haters it’s funny how you were so quick to respond. At least you are a self admitted hater. I think that UGA, USC, OK, WV, LSU, OK, etc all deserved a chance for a national championship. If you base it on just 2 teams going than I believe LSU deserved it over UGA by winning the SEC championship but that doesn’t mean they were the best team playing; they were just the most deserving. (If UGA won the SEC championship and LSU went to the NC with the same record I would be really p**) Would UGA have beaten LSU? Who knows. Could Auburn have beaten USC a few years back? No one will ever know. That is exactly why we need a playoff!!

By Jagman

January 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

A 16 or 8 team playoff is simply not going to happen this half century. That leaves a 4 team play-off or a plus one. This year, even that format would have been meaningless, and would not have satisfied the chief complainants (Georgia & USC), since they weren’t ranked in the top four. Moreover, if you go deeper than four, it’s not a play-off; it’s a tournament, ill-suited to college football.

The problem isn’t the absence of a play-off - it’s the selection process - which is why OSU keeps getting picked and keeps getting blown out. There is too much emphasis purely on record, without consideration of strength of schedule, quality wins, ranked opponents, etc. The computers try to consider these factors, but generally get it wrong. The human polls generally ignore these factors and devolve into popularity contests, based on reputations, regional prejudices, and on who is “the next Boise State.” Hawaii should never get close to the Top Ten. Considering strength of schedule, there might be several 10-2 teams better than an 11-1 team. The consensus of pundit opinion going in was that LSU was better than OSU (based on strength of schedule and quality wins), and would win that game. Many also thought that USC and Georgia were better than OSU. If that’s the case, then why did those same pundits/voters make OSU No. 1?

The goal of the BCS was to match assure 1 & 2. In that, it has succeeded. Where it has failed is in identifying the best Top Two. I would go back to the process whereby a fourth factor is added to the computer and human polls, that factor being based upon strength of schedule, quality wins, quality losses, ranked opponents, with heavy emphasis on winning a conference championship game, etc.

Finally, all BCS-bashers must be 13 years old. If they were older, they would remember when the “champion” was truly “mythical”, and usually went to, regardless of schedule, the media darlings, Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, or Nebraska.

By this is toooo easy!!

January 10, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

we should have a 12 team playoff. There are a total of 11 I-A conferences and 1 independent conference. Take the 11 conference champs with the at-large coming out of the independent conf and seed them based on rankings and move on!! I’m not sure why this is soooo hard…?

By vince

January 10, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

Playoff of the 4 BCS winners

By G'Vegas Dawg

January 10, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe I am saying this, but, Adams actually makes sense. The only thing that I would change would be to add two bowls, probably the peach and cotton into the mix. I would have them in the quarter finals and the 2 other BCS bowls as the semi-finals with one of the 6 doubling up on a rotating basis for the national championship. One thing that might ease some minds of the pac-10 and the big-10 would be to promise to attempt to pair up the appropriate schools for the Rose Bowl. Also, you could do the same for the Peach. In my mind the Peach is one of the more interesting bowls year in and year out as of late. There it is….the perfect scenario for everyone!!

By pffft

January 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

timmythebrave, actually im not a uga hater. i lived in GA fo quite a while and they do have a good program. i just get amused with the arguments from some people here and a few i work with about why a team that didnt win thier conf deserved the nc game.i admire thier fire for thier team but laugh at the logic.

but Billy, good god put down the violin. we lose early, they lost late yada yada yada, they won the conf champ and went to the big game (season as a whole). if uga had beaten either of the two teams they lost to (and they were better than both) they would have had a hell of a sec title game and we wouldnt be having this conversation. get rid of the pollsters, make it conf champs and settle it on the field not in the blogs.

i will give it to the dogs for going out and letting loose in a no win situation. if they beat hawaii, so what, it is only a whack team. if they lose after all the complaining, omg they would have caught it. that was a flat out whoppin they gave out. next year should be fun for the dog fans

By War Eagle

January 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

President Adams has a better chance of filling his jar raising funds than NCAA playoff.The BCS cannot be fix because you have so many bias sportswriters and cable sport networks. ESPN is all Big Ten, Fox favors ACC, FSN shows SEC and big newspapers are all local support, ex. LAT-USC, Dallas Herald,Big 12, NYT Big East, ajc ACC-SEC, Chicago Tribune Notre Dame…CBS, NBC, ESPN have very bias announcers WITH VOTES. The coaches poll is the only true indicator and they somyetimes might falter….The Bowls will continue, Presidents, most coaches will be happy, the only loser FANS and SUPPORTERS…This is all Auburn 2004, when we got “put down” by BCS, every Auburn person including Administative personnel mention change…

By pfft

January 10, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

no matter what system they use there will always be a bubble team that can make an argument on why thier loss was better, or a bubble team that could make a 3 game run against anyone. i never understood why a writer, who probably never played, who is obviously bias, holds so much weight in the rankings. atleast a conf winner did in on the field. not in a newspaper article from some alumni. sometimes traditions need to step aside for progress.

By Billy

January 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

do i think that a 8 taem playoff in college football is feasable???not really….a four team playoff would not be worth the effort====>wouldn’t work….might fool some but would not be true year end and year out…..just too much so-called history and politics involved with college football and yes money….do i believe that Dr. Adams has stirred the pot a little bit getting media and others to take a second look at liitle ol SEC football????yes i do… it’s great to get a little attention in a positive way that can be backed up rather than ignorant stereotypes…..UGA has gotten the attention and will be the most watched college football team next year (hopefully) as well as all the sec…..yes,,,will be most enjoyable watching everything unfold next year….

By gdawginkalamazoo

January 10, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

Jagman, I remember those good old days. LMAO! Notre Dame would have finished 2nd in the country this year right behind Bear Bryant and Bama. Or something wacky like Colorado and Tech sharing the title.

By bobbylee

January 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Sounds like child’s play “Do Over”.

By Frank Tripping

January 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Anyone who thinks the Warriors got in the BCS because of the Boise State “feel good” factor is a tad young for this discussion and needs to get off the computer and help his mommy clean up his room. The mid-majors threatened to sue the BCS a few years ago if the little guys didn’t have at least a chance to get in the mix for the big payday if they end the season with an undefeated team. The BCS schools realized they couldn’t defend their monopoly in court and decided to give up a bowl spot (money). That’s what this is about, kiddies. As you were.

By DWG

January 10, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

Go to an 11 game schedule.

Every BCS conference plays a championship game so you get 6 conference champs.

The weekend of the conf. championship games, 4 at large teams (highest ranked not in a conf. championship - or smaller conference in the top 10) play at the higher ranked teams home field. We need this in order to ensure that every team has played the same amount of games. It’s not fair to have 3 conferences risk injury and expend energy while other teams sit at home waiting on a selection committee.

First weekend in Dec. play an 8 team playoff at the higher ranked teams home field. Four winners advance to the BCS bowls in three + weeks.

Jan. 1 two BCS bowls host semi final games. Two BCS bowls have regular “exhibition” games.

7 days later a BCS bowl that hosted an “exhibition” bowl hosts the national championship game. The BCS bowls would rotate each year with 3 BCS games having national championship implications instead of 1 which is our current system.

This scenario gives time for a break for the teams in December and allows for the other “exhibition” bowls. It also gives the “exhibition” bowls time to select teams that have been knocked out of contention. Most important, it does not prolong the bowl season, it would end the same time as it currently ends and only two teams play 14 total games. That’s only 1 more than LSU played this year.

We have to have at-large teams included in the process along with conf. champs. There will be non-conf. winner or independent finish the regular season at #1. If they get left out of the playoff we would end up with a split champion and the process doesn’t work.

By College Football Fan

January 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

HERE’S WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE:

• Keep the BCS for seeding purposes in an 8-team playoff.
• Remove one of the games from the 12-game season, as it used to be.
• The conference champions from the 6 major conferences get an automatic bid (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 10, Big East). With the caveat that the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East add teams to create 12-team conferences with a championship game.
• The remaining two spots are filled with at large bids, which are determined by the next 2 highest ranked teams in the BCS standings, with a maximum of two teams from each conference.
• The 8 teams are then seeded by there ranking in the BCS standings.

• For instance this year the teams and their seeding would have been as follows:

• Ohio State (Conf. Champ, #1 BCS)

• LSU (Conf. Champ, #2 BCS)
• Virginia Tech (Conf. Champ, #3 BCS)
• Oklahoma (Conf. Champ, #4 BCS)
• Georgia (#5 BCS)
• Missouri (#6 BCS)
• USC (Conf. Champ, #7 BCS)
• West Virginia (Conf. Champ, #9 BCS)

So quarterfinal matchups would have been:

Ohio State (1) vs. West Virginia (8) Oklahoma (4) vs. Georgia (5)

LSU (2) vs. USC (7) Virginia Tech (3) vs. Missouri (6)

The 7 playoff games would rotate yearly through the geographically diverse Rose (Pasadena), Fiesta (Tempe), Sugar (New Orleans), Orange (Miami), Cotton (Dallas) and Peach (bring it back to Atlanta, and even keep the Chick-fil-A bowl for the usual ACC/SEC matchup).

The question is how to space the games out enough so that fans are willing to travel long distances round after round. I don’t know the answer to this, and maybe three consecutive weeks would work, so throw in your thoughts on this.

My solution would be to move championship week up one week to Thanksgiving weekend (with the 11-game regular season) and have the quarterfinals two weekends later (Dec. 8 this last season). The players would then get a 10 to 16 day break for finals (depending on when thanksgiving falls). The semis would be played on Christmas Eve. Players would then get a 10-day break for Christmas. The National Championship would be played on January 4.

More games, more money, same Bowls, One undisputed Champion. Everyone is happy!

By jim harrick

January 10, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

I would start by kicking Mikey Adams in the balls! When he screws something up (Harrick)you can’t find him anywhere. When the football team has a great year he is the first one to stand in front of the trophy. What a loser!

By jc_atl

January 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Adams spelled out the exact playoff system I’d like: 8 teams, 7 games, 3 weeks and done. Make the final game on New Year’s Day so that CFB is over and done on January 1st, none of this stretching it out over another week. If they have the games between the holidays rather than at 8pm EST on a school night their viewership will increase as well.

By sammy reaves

January 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

who cares, as you said , it’s all about money,ratings, and politics. down here in valdosta ,ga. ,we like the gators, the dawgs ,and sometime the crimanoles.but, most of all, we like our local college and our local national and our local state champs.GO CATS ,VIKINGS, AND BLAZERS.

By Caleb Moreno (Superback)

January 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

I would just eliminate the entire season and go ahead and crown the Dawgs national champions…save all the other teams out there (i.e., Florida) a little heartache and dissapointment

By Billy

January 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

yea,,those scenarios might work BUT the problem,,,that i see,,,would be who would do the ranking???AP,,BCS===>don’t really have any faith in those two for obvious reasons……no,, don’t think the coaches could do it accurately either….maybe you can take all three and come up with something….all polls must come out @ same time

By UGA FANS get a grip!!

January 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

it’s funny to my how UGA hasn’t been relevent in the national title race since the 80’s, but you still have folks saying they should be crowned NCs…? GTFOH… you didn’t win you conference or your division. Get a grip people!! We all know that your whole season is based on beating UF… too bad that it only happens every 10 years. LMAO!!! Don’t worry, next year things will go back to normal and you all will be back to wanting to fire CMR. Best thing for you all to do is dust off that trophy from over 20yrs ago and be happy!!

By Baltimore Dawg

January 10, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

I like the 8-team approach but rather than have the teams picked by selection committee, I would have an automatic berth by all 6 of the major conference champions and then have 2 wild-card slots based on the AP/Coaches polls. That would alleviate the most controversy of any approach.

By braveswin

January 10, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

How would I fix the BCS? I would do away with it and go back to the traditional bowl structure.The BCS was put into place to pit the two best teams into a championship game and as of yet at best they are batting .500 in doing so.There is no fix unless you make everyone join a conference and every conference has a championship game and only the conference champions can play in a tournament.That can’t happen and have the bowls survive.Ditch it and go back to traditional bowls

By Billy

January 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this

i think that the bcs poll should be there as well only with computer results….pair this one with the coaches///ap poll and have a final poll and call it something like the ncaa poll taht will take the three polls and incorporate in thier own ratings….don’t have a problem with the championship winners being atomatically in there====>the two wild cards will be the controversy….BUT the people comprising the so called ncaa poll will need some kind of futher thought……i am sure these university pres can come up w/something…..after all,,,it is and should be thier show….

By Big Dawg

January 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

OK, Im sorry that us UGA fans love talking about our winning team. Lets change the subject and talk about GT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Well, that about sums it up.

By Chuck

January 10, 2008 8:46 PM | Link to this

Divisions III, II and I already have playoffs. Division IA should do the same. A “sweet 16” with conference champions and some wild cards would be sufficient. The first round would be in early December and the final would be played on New Year’s Day. The major bowls would take turns hosting the rounds; minor bowls could host consolation games for the teams that don’t make the playoffs. Any playoff is better than what there is now, but until championships are no longer determined by polls and committees, I won’t be satisfied.

By LostDawginAR

January 10, 2008 9:16 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe that Jeff D’Alessio would print the quote from Arkansas President John White TODAY when John White was forced to resign YESTERDAY!

Check your sources bud!!!

By Billy

January 10, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this

i think chuck’s feelings towards polls is a sentiment of a lot of fans……i would like to suggest that if a sort of ncaa poll as i described is ever to be implemented,,,i think the the ncaa voters “vote” should be publicized…AS WELL AS the reasoning behind the vote….a simple b/c i think they were the best team is not sufficient…..a detailed reason why the vote was cast should be explained…this MAY swing the confidence of a lot of fans in regards to polls….

as far as having a 16 team playoff====>man,,,that’s alot of wear and tear on these young men…..appreciate your fervor and opinion but don’t believe that’s ever going to happen….not neccesarily you but a lot of people have liken what they want with football to that of basketball in regards to a playoff….football is not like basketball in that it takes at least a week to prepare for your opponent for football…..if a defense comes out in a zone in basketball,,,offense runs zone offense…..same thing in regards to man to man=====>not a whole lot of film study in b-ball…..

the best scenario that i’ve seen so far is the six champions of conferences with admittance and 2 at large…..

By Rusty

January 10, 2008 10:54 PM | Link to this

I suppose a playoff is never going to happen, and if it does, it will have flaws too. We live in a flawed world! But, just for fun, I’d like to suggest what one might look like:

Organizing the super conferences would be a huge undertaking, but we already have the framework in place. The ACC, SEC and Big-12 would remain virtually unchanged, perhaps adding a team or two to each division. The Big Ten would have to have a couple teams added, the Big East would have to have similar, as would the Pac-10. Then the Mountain West and WAC could round out the teams. I figure each conference would need around 14 teams.

Call me crazy, but I think this would work!!!

By XXXX

January 10, 2008 11:05 PM | Link to this

Adams has no credibility. He’s a proven thug. It will be a riot to see AJ Harmon sit on the bench for three years until he gets his “turn”. When you are one of 100 “studs” you’re just another stud.

By XXXX

January 10, 2008 11:17 PM | Link to this

When an ACC basketball team loses to UGA , they should withdraw from the conference. Hewitt should resign. An insult like this should never go without severe repercussions. DRAD, you have another job to do. Please do it NOW.

By Nick

January 11, 2008 1:03 AM | Link to this

Last Sat. in Nov.: End of Regular NCAA Football Season

The following day: A selection committee picks 4 at large teams and seeds 1 to 4 trying to match regional opponents. At large bid must be school from divisional aligned conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 12) not in Championship game or from a mid major program. Because Big 10, Pac 10, and Big East do not have a formal divisional structure they are not eligible for an at large. If they implement conf. championship game they become eligible for at large bids.

The following Sat: SEC, ACC, & Big 12 have Champ. Games like they do now. Seed #4 goes to seed #1 stadium for game, and Seed #3 goes to Seed #2. Non divisional conferences (Big-10, Pac 10, Big East) selects two best team from their conferences to match up.(Optional: instead of two Big 10 teams playing each other, selection committee could just pick at large for remaining 10 teams and try to avoid rematches from the season.)

The day after: Selection Committee reseeds the Eight Winners (SEC, ACC, Pac-10, Big-10, Big 12 and Big East Champs along with At-large winners. Teams ranked 1 to 4 for an East and West Regional.

Following Sat: No games, finals and end of semesters take place.

3rd Sat. in Dec.: From each regional, Seed 1 host Seed 4 and Seed 2 hosts Seed 3. Optional, NCAA can have cities bid on hosting games.

New Years Day or the closest Sat. before NYD: Regional Championship games. Can be incorporated in existing bowl games or can be awarded to host cities by bidding process. (Since BCS bowls clearly are not concerned to matching up best possible opponents using bidding host cities is preferred. Let BCS bowls pick from teams not in playoff.)

One week later: NCAA National Football Championship game, either on site of a traditional bowl or host city bidding process.

Example using existing BCS Rankings as Selection Committee’s selection process and assuming higher seeded teams win: Saturday, Dec. 1:
LSU vs. Tenn. (SEC) Mizzu vs. Oklahoma (Big-12) Va. Tech vs. BC (ACC) OSU vs. Mich. or Illinois (Big 10 to decide) WVU vs. UConn (Big East) USC vs. Ariz. St. (Pac-10) At large Game 1: Kansas (Big 12) vs. Hawaii (WAC) At Large Game 2: UGA(SEC) vs. Clemson(ACC) (Optional rule prohibited Fla from receiving at large bid since two at large bids cannot come from same conference.

Sunday, Dec. 2: Selection Committee Seeds

Saturday, Dec. 15: East Region: #1 LSU vs. #4 WVU, #2 Va Tech vs. # 3 UGA West Region: #1 OSU vs. #4 Kansas, #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 USC

January 1: East Championship: #1 LSU vs. #2 Va Tech West Championship: #1 OSU vs. #2 Oklahoma

January 7: LSU vs. OSU

By Marvin Prellberg

January 11, 2008 4:29 AM | Link to this

I would relate any team’s eligibility playoff participation to : First— the individual school’s football team meeting a minimum academic graduation and scholastic achievement in acceptable “core” college level courses as set by an academic committee of the BCS. This would take precedence over any team’s season won/loss record.

Second — The level of competition as agreed upon by a select committee of coaches and other “experts” in the ranking field.

By Ralph Oakes

January 11, 2008 6:17 AM | Link to this

What we have now is obsolete. Too much information out there too quickly to keep the old system. Change is scary to 14 of the schools but change is good. Get on with it and go Dr. Adams.

By AHALL

January 11, 2008 7:07 AM | Link to this

In every other division of NCAA football, the playoff system is in place and works well. Just replicate that model. If this process is truly about the student-athletes, academic integrity, and a true national champion, GO WITH WHAT HAS WORKED FOR every other level of NCAA football. Start with 16 teams with the top 4 teams seeded (8 games), then to 8 team (4 games; quarterfinals), then to 4 teams (semis), and then the NATL TILE Game. Of the 15 games played above, each could have a corporate sponsor which would do two things: give the NCAA the cash that the organization has budgeted for and have the games played on a nuetral site. Obviously, the top 4 seeds would have to play as close to home as possible through out the playoffs. I know that you would eliminate 15 other bowl games, but you could demand more money for the above 15 bowl games. Besides, the kids would be done by Christmas.

By Real Football Fan

January 11, 2008 7:08 AM | Link to this

I think bulldog nation is almost right, problem is UGA would not get in if there were a playoff system this past season. You need to either win your conference or win you Championship game. So, all winners of their conferences should have a equal opportunity to get in the play off system. You still have all the Bowls out there, you just take the winners of each one and move on. You go to the Texas Bowl and win, you move on to the playoff brackett. You go to the Orange Bowl and win it, you move on to the playoff system. If you just base it on what is being recommended, this past system would have been. USC vs WVA, Kansas vs Va Tech, Oklahoma vs Missouri, LSU vs Ohio St. The only fair thing is to do like I mentioned above. Take ALL the winners of each Bowl game and move on to the next level.

By Creekdweller

January 11, 2008 7:08 AM | Link to this

Schools should leave out the cupcake games at the start of the season, that would take out a lot of B.S. that nobody wants anyway. And get down to business early with real conference foes. That would leave room in the season for the extra games at the end of the year. You already have a playoff system in place to determine which school will represent the SEC… it is called the SEC Championship game. Then you would bracket Conference champions against each other, and the winner would be determined in the final game.

By Creekdweller

January 11, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this

I think that the Bulldog nation embraced the poll system, when they we ranked high, the day that they were sitting at home watching the conference champions battle it out. But the fact is if a playoff system were in place, the SEC loser [Tennessee], would be a better team than Georgia. Now they want to whine, so…. either like the polls, or the playoff system but make up your mind.

By randy

January 11, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this

16 teams, cut out the conference championships as they only hurt a good team. Use current BCS rankings for the 16.

round 1 at closest current bowl site to highest ranked home team round 2 same thing round 3/4/5 - the major bowls

By Keith

January 11, 2008 7:39 AM | Link to this

It’s simple - and this makes everybody happy…

Eliminate the 12th game. You have the last games of the regular season over Thanksgiving (or earlier - that doesn’t really matter), the conference championships the first week of December, then take a “finals” break to make the academic-driven people happy. Then, just before Christmas, you have an extra “regular season” game for the top 8 which acts as the first round. How these 8 are chosen is irrelevant right now. To make it “regular season-ish”, the games are played on the campuses of the top 4 seeds - not at neutral sites. Calling them regular season games keeps the “integrity of the bowls”, and keeps the bowl people happy. And this first round is just as the slew of “other bowls” is starting. On Jan 1, you have the four major bowls using the same 8 teams from the “extra regular season games” - it’s just that, say, the Sugar and Orange have the four winners from the first round and the Rose and Fiesta have the four losers from the first round. This makes it so that the losers of the first round still go to a bowl, once again, making the first round seem more like a regular season game. The winners of the Sugar and Orange meet a week later, around Jan 8, in the, “National Championship Game”.

What we have there is a system that does not conflict any more with academics as it does now, a system that preserves the bowls, a system that has a playoff, a system with a “plus-one” format, a system where the regular season still matters, and a system that crowns a true champion.

By dawg fan

January 11, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

The current bowl system is meaningless. The only game that has any meaning is the “championship game”. A college football playoff would be absolutely incredible. If it ever happens all these naysayers are going to be scratching there heads saying why wasn’t this done years ago, this is the biggest and best thing in sports. I am not so worried about the details. Just do something. I am sure it can be tweaked as time goes. I am tired of all the talk about who is the best team. Lets let them line up toe to toe and then we will all know. And how fun it will be to watch.

By Chuck

January 11, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

Other divisions have 32 teams in the first round of the playoffs. There’s no reason why Division IA can’t at least have 16.

By George

January 11, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

one thing this proves once again is UGA has less class than any other progam in the country! to do this the day after LSU won the national championship OUTRIGHT is OUTRAGEOUS and CLASLESS. It is one of about five or six incidents this season that is just absurd and just continues to prove why UGA is one of the most clasless schools in the enitre country! Did the school who has the biggest gripe in the history of the BCS do this??? (Auburn 04) nope. Hell UGA did not even have the biggest gripe in the BCS THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! MIZZOU come to mind. It is just simply patetic and comical.

By TuscaloosaTom

January 11, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

The first thing I would do to “fix” the BCS is to require all eligible team to be conference or divisions winners. 2nd would be to require that all teams would have to play at least 4 teams ranked in the top 20. Georgia: you should have beaten the Vols. Case Closed.

By George Crosbie

January 11, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this

Where were you Georgia fans in 2004. You whining hypocrites told Auburn to stop complaining. Now you know what it’s like to get raped by the B.C.S

By rhall

January 11, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this

Fix it? Try scrapping it. They couldn’t get a number one team right all year. Even the rankings going into the bowls were a pile of BSC. I’d rather see split national champions than that mess again.

By G'villeDawg

January 11, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

In an effort to be fan, bowl and student athlete friendly this is my take. We as fans have to give up the conference championship games to allow that first weeekend in December to be used for four quarter-final games at the higher seeded team’s home site. On new year’s day the four current BCS bowls will then host (on a rotating basis) the semi-finals in two bowls and a match-up of the four QF losers in the other two. The championship game is then to be played a week or maybe two later at another site (which could be a different site from the BCS bowls or could be done like we do now with playing a 2nd game at a BCS site). This allows students to study for finals, does not increase the number of games played by anyone except the two teams in the national championship game, reduces the number of fan bases traveling to neutral sites on consecutive weekends and allows the “big” bowls to continue to host “top” teams.

By SmartDawg

January 11, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

I would get rid of Michael Adams.

By zeke

January 11, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

NO SELECTION “COMMITTEE” TO CHOOSE THE TEAMS! THAT LEADS TO PERSONAL, CONFERENCE AND REGIONAL PRESSURES AND PREFERENCES! THAT IS OBVIOUS IN THE BASKETBALL SELECTIONS FOR THE NCAA TOURNAMENT! USE ALL THE MAJOR POLLS, STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE AND RPI RATINGS IN A COMPUTER ONLY ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE TOP 32 TEAMS. SET UP 16 GAMES BASED ON THE TOP RATED #1 VS. THE LAST RATED #32, ETC. THEN PLAY THESE GAMES STARTING ONE WEEK AFTER THE CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES, WITH THE FINAL GAME TWO WEEKS AFTER THE SEMI FINALS. GAMES COULD BE FINISHED BY NEW YEARS OR THE FIRST WEEK OF THE NEW YEAR LIKE THE CURRENT BOWLS!

WEEK 1:GAME 1-TEAM #1 VS. TEAM #32 GAME 2-TEAM #2 VS. TEAM #31 AND SO ON UNTIL GAME 16-TEAM #16 VS. TEAM #17

WEEK 2:WINNER GAME 1 VS.WINNER GAME16 WINNER GAME 2 VS.WINNER GAME15 AND SO ON UNTIL WINNER GAME 8 VS.WINNER GAME 9

CONTINUE UNTIL A WINNER EMERGES!

THIS WILL NOT INSURE THAT THE BEST TEAM WINS THE CHAMPIONSHIP BECAUSE EVER THE GREATEST TEAM CAN HAVE AN OFF DAY! BUT, THIS IS A BETTER INDICATION OF A CHAMPION!

By Regular Joe

January 11, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

First, football fans have to do what they did this year. Stop watching bad match-ups in bowl games. Stop watching games that are much over three hours and kickoffs after 8pm.

A college playoff will follow naturally.

By Charlie

January 11, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Now that the NCAA is actively discussin this situation, it will get done. I believe Dr. Adams idea is a very solid framework for discussion. However, if you simply look at the parity demonstrated this year; eight teams may still very talented and capable teams on the outside looking in at the party. I would tweak Dr. Adams idea as follows: 1. Let all the conferences determine their champion. 2. If there are worthy independents, based on the polls, the top two play for a dance ticket. 3. Each conference or a vote by all coaches recommends the remaining teams to fill in the pairings. 4. Everybody gets at least one week off between the championship and the tournament games beginning. 5. This probably gets you to a field of 16 teams and the games could be slotted into some of the existing bowls or as stand alone games. 6. With a little creativity, you could certainly finish this format without violating the legitimate concern of the football season carrying over into the next academic semester. 7. As to the history and tradition of the bowls, work the schedules to provide the “historical” matchup if possible. If not, let new history and tradition be created by competitive games that lead to true national champions. 8. When it is all said and done, there will be a huge money debate between the “smaller” conferences and those viewed as the top of the ladder (see current BCS if you don’t get this point) and frankly, with all the money a system will generate, that problem should be addressed up front! There will be more than enough money to go around and this should not be the ultimate barrier to such an obvious solution. Guess you can tell I have some passion about this…

By wendall porter

January 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

I say start off the season as a playoff. Take all 120 teams and match them up at the beginning as a round robin tournament so that no team says that they didn’t have a chance at a national title. Put #1 vs. #120 etc. The sixty losers fall into a different bracket and go from there.

By timmythebrave

January 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

I think a 8 team playoff would be good enough. The 6 major conference champions and 2 at large bids based on BCS rankings. Have all BCS bowls on Jan 1 host the 4 games. Final 4 the weekend after and championship game on Jan 15 or there abouts. It adds 2 additional games than we have now and 1 additional week and we have a true national champion. Simple enough to me. Don’t worry about people traveling to a final 4 for their college team. Like field of dreams: build it and they will come.

By Gene

January 11, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Will Adams beon the committee selecting the 8 teams?

By Billy

January 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

the only concern that i see with the six conf champs is that ex)big 10 has no conf championship game and could be a cake walk for a team ie)osu with getting into playoff every year…i think the at large bids would satisfy a sit like uga this year if happens again……there has to be some kind of penalty for not having conf championship game===>home field advantage or something….still think 6 conf champs and two at large is best scenario…

By Doug

January 11, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

If the Rose bowl doesn’t want to be part of it, then cut them out. They can host the stupid BCS championship every year between USC vs. Ohio St.

If schools or conferences don’t want to be part of a play-off and true championship, cut them out.

By F Russo

January 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

I COME TO THIS SITE TO GET MY LAUGHS AS MEL BROOKS WOULD SAY “IT’S GOOD TO BE A UGA FAN” AS A UGA FAN YOU CAN READ ALL THE LOOSERS WHO COME ON THIS WEB SITE AND CRY. COME ON LOOSERS ONE DAY YOUR PROGRAM WILL BE GOOD AGAIN AND YOU CAN BEAM LIKE US.

By borodawg

January 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Only if the reg season is shortened to 10 games. Then a plus one or plus two system. But, bare in mind, there will still be controversy! Who’s gonna pick the playoff teams? So, why do it at all?

By borodawg

January 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Los Angeles Times college football insider Chris Dufresne took University of Georgia President Michael Adams to task earlier this week for his proposing a playoff. Dufresne gives us five reasons Adams’ proposal will never fly: 1. The Rose Bowl, which played its first game four years before the NCAA was formed, isn’t going to be a quarterfinal playoff game. 2. The Pac-10 and Big Ten say no playoff can even be considered until after ABC’s separate deal with the Rose Bowl expires after the 2013 season. It is also stipulated by contract that the Rose Bowl will host the 2013 championship game. 3. Ohio State President Gordon Gee said those who advocate a playoff would have to wrestle the current sysem out of “my cold, dead hands.” 4. The majority of Division 1-A athletics directors will not sacrifice a 12th regular-season game, as Mr. Adams’ plan requires, so that eight schools can conduct a mini-playoff. 5. Demanding a playoff because your school didn’t make the BCS title game is not a good enough reason.

I also agree with Furman Bisher. The present system may be flawed, but any playoff system would be flawed also.

By SavTechIE

January 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

The whole concept of bowl games is being misinterpreted and the idea of playoffs meaningless. First of all, is the best team in 2007 the one that crushes all its quality opponents but has a bad outing its last game of the season, or a team that loses 4 games at the start of the season against mediochre teams but knocks off 3 top-tens in November.

Regarding bowls, a single win after a month’s lay off and depending on where the game’s played is no determination of which team was the better at season’s end.

There is no way to prove which are the better teams at seasons’ end. The two major benefits of bowls, besides fortifying already overflowing athletic department bank accounts, are seasons-end rewards for the players and holiday match-ups that entertain TV watchers and local football fans. Depending on the selections, it might also benefit the citrus C of Cs. We should put no more emphasis on post season games than that, and I say, give a national award not to the team that’s playing best at the season’s end and has a bowl win but to the team with the best statistical record overall for the entire season.

By SavTechIE

January 11, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Wouldn’t do it. Won’t prove a thing. Bowls are for fun and entertainment. Let the BCS computers establish the rankings based on whole-season performances - - not on November’s.

By Creekdweller

January 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

As far as comparing strength of schedule, USC played one team all year ranked in the top 20, while LSU played 5 teams ranked in the top 15, with 2 ranked in the top 10. with one more win on the year more than USC and Georgia had to play. Yeah LSU had their share of cupcake games two out of 14 teams they played. But they really played a tough schedule.

By RT

January 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Remember, rankings are just another name for a summary of guesses. So the teams in the playoff game will still be determined by a guess. (Which is why it makes everyone so crazy). Win your conference, beat your in-state rival, win a bowl game and brag for the rest of the year. The national championship doesn’t matter.

By ch

January 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

I think the only schools that are complaining are the ones who start off with a soft schedule, then when it’s time to beat the teams you need to beat later on they can’t. Then they get rank in the top ten but aren’t in their conference championship game and then whine becasue they should be at the BCS championship game. The system is fine the teams that want to play in the big games need to schedule a stronger schedule and then beat the teams you need to beat.

By Walton

January 11, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

If there was a play-off, step 1 would be to win your division. Step 2 - win your conference. Enough said.

By Dixie-Dawg

January 11, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

I would keep everything the same and after the bowls take the four highest ranking teams into a playoff. That way the bowls are preserved and only four teams have additional games.

By Daltersher

January 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

16 team playoff. The 11 conference winners, the independent school with the best w/l, and 4 at large teams to be selected and seeded by a selection committee as in basketball. The bowls select from the remaining teams to fill their slots. The tournament games are played each weekend after the final regular season game and continue each weekend with the championship game on New Year’s weekend. The bowl games would be played on the same schedule as they are now. Plenty of good football to go around. Might even drop some of the lesser bowls in the process.

By Creekdweller

January 11, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Leave out the cupcake games at the start of the season, Ball State, please… stick with conference games, win your conference, then play the conferences against each other. With the omission of the cupcake games that would leave plenty of room in the season without having to play 16 games a year. Notre Dame, join a conference, please… and quit being greedy. Rose Bowl… get with the program and invite other conferences to play. And in the end nobody has anything to whine about.

By ken ausborn

January 11, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

8 conference champs and 8 at large teams—cut reg season games to 11 and this would only add 4 games to a football season

By Dave

January 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

I agree with the eight team playoff. I disagree with the method of selection. The voters and computers must be removed from the selection process. First, the conference champions from the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Big East, and PAC 10 should be automatics. The other two would be the top rated independant and the top rated from the remaining conferences. No seeding. Playoff opponents would be selected by predetermined schedule. Six of the eight teams from the strongest conferences would be selected strictly by play on the field. Anytime teams are chosen by people or computers there will be bias and unhapiness and the same thing is true when seeding is used.

By Steve

January 11, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this

To replace the pathetically lame BCS system will be a HUGE uphill battle. But the current system is not only broken, it never worked to begin with!!

As for those who simply say that a playoff system cannot work, kindly explain why EVERY other level of NCAA competition has enjoyed a playoff format for DECADES. You can’t have it both ways, playoff-haters! If it works for 1-AA, Division II, (or whatever they’ll be called next week) etc, then it will work for the big boys.

By playoff please

January 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

im sick of the big ten and pac ten. the big ten stands in the way and they suck as a conference. everyone in america watched them suck a* in TWO bowl games this year. Im to the point where im willing to protest the rose bowl and will refuse to watch it on tv. it wont be a good game anyways cus the pac ten is so much better than the big ten. what every happend to giving the consumer, all of the America, what they want in a playoff system.

By Creekdweller

January 12, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

Truth is, the wealth of players are no longer where they used to be, Fla. St., Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska,ect. ect, These kids are staying closer to home and with the rise in popularity in College Football, Universities are spending more on everything, further attracting players. And as it stands now the conferences that used to be full of powerhouse football…well are now left with so so players making them average or less.

By Dr. Kelly E. Flanagan

January 13, 2008 9:37 PM | Link to this

What I advocate is a system like the one proposed by Dr. Adams, along with a system I call “Every Bowl Counts.”

In essence, the eight playoff bids go to the champions of the six BCS conferences and two at-large teams the first year. However, in order for a conference to gain an “automatic bid” the following year for its champion, its teams must win three non-BCS bowls. This would make all bowls meaningful in the championship process. For example, if such a system occurred this year, the Mountain West Conference would have earned an automatic playoff bid for its 2008 champion by winning three bowls in 2007, while the ACC would have been eliminated by its 2-5 record in non-BCS bowls. BYU’s one-point victory over UCLA in the Las Vegas Bowl, Auburn’s overtime win over Clemson in the Chick-fil-A Bowl, Texas Tech’s come-from-behind win over Virginia in the Gator Bowl, the New Mexico Bowl, the Texas Bowl and the Humanitarian Bowl all would have had a bearing on next year’s national championship picture.

This, I believe, is the perfect way to preserve the bowl tradition and still have a college football playoff system.

By Creekdweller

January 14, 2008 9:30 PM | Link to this

Dr. Adams is wishy-washy, first he had faith in the poll system, thinking his team is better than LSU even though LSU won the SEC. So much for the playoff system in the SEC. Only, every time a team plays, the polls are recalculated. So much for the SEC championship games, which are a playoff system, which usually decides whether a team is good enough to play for a National championship. Then the next norning I guess he was astonished to find that while he relaxing in his recliner watching the playoff games the pollsters were refiguring the rankings, and the team that beat his team lost to LSU, and LSU jumped ahead of Georgia. Now Mr. Adams wants a playoff system seperate from the SEC playoffs, since he feels Georgia wasn,t playing well early in the season. So we exclude the first five games, and if a team wins the last 6 or 7 in a row then they are to play in a championship game. you can,t have it one way and when that don,t work, then whine you want it another way.