Best Football Playoff Proposal I've Seen Written Down

eulessismore · December 6, 2008

I'm surprised that nobody here has commented on this.

Dan Wetzel's proposed 16 team playoff format.

NT80 · December 6, 2008

"For even lower-rated conferences ( the Sun Belts, C-USA ) allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country."

I totally agree with this, and his proposal. Unfortunately, all those entities currently with $$ interests (Bowls, Networks, BCS schools) would balk at such a scheme until it was shown how they could gain even more of the green stuff. <_<

Edited December 6, 2008 by NT80

Mean Green 93-98 · December 6, 2008

I would love to see it happen. It will require more situations like Texas' this year to get the big boys on board. Even then, I could see them setting it up to leave out the "have-nots."

December 6, 2008

"For even lower-rated conferences ( the Sun Belts, C-USA ) allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country."
I totally agree with this, and his proposal. Unfortunately, all those entities currently with $$ interests (Bowls, Networks, BCS schools) would balk at such a scheme until it was shown how they could gain even more of the green stuff.

All this needs is a little selling and everyone wins.

1. Hold the playoff games at bowl sites

It would take 15 games (bowls) to determine a champion. Here are the 15 highest payout cities (exclusive of duplications) in no particular order: Pasadena, Miami, New Orleans, Glendale (Phoenix), Dallas, San Antonio,

Jacksonville, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Orlando, Tampa, El Paso, San Diego and Shreveport. The eight with the smallest payouts get the first round games, the next four get the quarterfinals, two get the semifinals and I like to see the finals at the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day (but that's just me). The top two teams would get at least double what they get under the present system (of course they would play four games instead of two) and the quarterfinalists and semifinalists would get far more than the current system.

2. Do not eliminate other bowls

There could still be 12-15 more bowls with at least 7 win teams and great matchups. This would still give everyone a chance at a postseason payout and keep interest high for the bowls. It would be a boon to every conference because the better teams will still get postseason money and accolades.

3. The networks could still get their bowl attractions

I believe that there were 32 bowl games last year. If there were 16 playoff teams and 30 others involved in non-playoff bowls, that would be only one less than the current bowl roster (two teams play a second game). ESPN, for example, could still have five or six bowls and get better teams at their bowls.

4. The NCAA makes as much (or more) money

The playoff games would likely demand a larger payout. The other bowl games might also be able to furnish larger payouts as well because the participants would have better records. Lower tier bowls sometimes have two 6-6 teams and the game isn't that attractive. The new bowl structure would always have at least 7-5 teams participating.

5. The colleges make more money

The overall payout should be greater, meaning more for the participants and even a little more for the other conference members.

6. We would have a true football champion

The champion would have to survive four weeks of competition from the best teams in the land. No one can deny that the best team won. Also, the playing field remains level since everyone plays at a neutral site.

Wen the bowls win, the colleges win, the fans win, the NCAA wins, the networks win and the conferences, even the elite ones, win then where is the argument?

Edited December 6, 2008 by GrayEagleOne

oldguystudent · December 6, 2008

Bottom line is that there is either one FBS or there isn't. The current situation is a quasi two division setup. Either make it explicitly two divisions or let all eleven conferences participate.

NT03 · December 10, 2008

How bout this :

NorthTexan95 · December 10, 2008

The writer is correct. The best thing the NCAA can do is ignore the bowls. Setup your playoffs and if the bowls want to be a apart they can come to the NCAA and beg. The NCAA once threw their weight around to start the basketball tourney and ignore the NIT. They can do it again and make this world a better place for our kids and our kids' kids. This playoff idea is exactly the kind I've been wanting.

jimmyjames_99 · December 10, 2008

All this needs is a little selling and everyone wins.
1. Hold the playoff games at bowl sites
It would take 15 games (bowls) to determine a champion. Here are the 15 highest payout cities (exclusive of duplications) in no particular order: Pasadena, Miami, New Orleans, Glendale (Phoenix), Dallas, San Antonio,
Jacksonville, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Orlando, Tampa, El Paso, San Diego and Shreveport. The eight with the smallest payouts get the first round games, the next four get the quarterfinals, two get the semifinals and I like to see the finals at the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day (but that's just me). The top two teams would get at least double what they get under the present system (of course they would play four games instead of two) and the quarterfinalists and semifinalists would get far more than the current system.
...
5. The colleges make more money
The overall payout should be greater, meaning more for the participants and even a little more for the other conference members.

My problem with having the playoffs use the bowl games is that teams would then participate in multiple bowls when they currently don't. While this would relate to more money for that college and it's conference members it would take away from the other coferences. The total money paid out would stay the same, it would just shift a higher percentage to the teams/conferences that makes the playoffs. Thus further dividing the "haves" from the "have nots".

All that said, playoffs are the only way to pick a true champion and I think its funny that HS and FCS have playoffs but FBS doesn't.

Chrisattsu · December 10, 2008

I like his argument. If fact, its the same thing I have been pushing for online for the past couple of weeks.

All you have to do is brow beat them into signing on to it. Essentially what you would do is leave the Bowls intact. Teams can still accept a bowl bid, to all of the major bowls can do whatever.

However, you invite the top 8 / 16 (including all PARTICIPATING Conference Champs) to forgo their traditional bowl in liew of playing for the chance of a national championship. The catch is that they have to run the gauntlet. If they don't go bowls, they are eligible for Homegames through the playoffs determined by SoS / H2H / Record.

2nd and 3rd place teams could receive an at large bid.

Those not eligible for the playoffs (either by record or belonging to a non-participatory conference) could still go to the Alamo, Sugar, Sun Bowls, whatever.

Conferences like the Pac 10 or Big 10 (who have opposed playoffs in the past), don't have to sign onto it if they don't want to, but they will never be eligible for a NC. Since the NCAA already has a stranglehold on college athletics, it would only be a matter of time before they caved.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Chrisattsu

UNTflyer · December 10, 2008

This is pretty close the system I've proposed for 3 years running, except my system calls for a massive realignment to 10 12-team conferences. This would mean 6 at-large bids instead of 5.

With 10 12-team conferences, you would have a conference championship game as your "opening round". The at-large bids would be filled by the 6 highest ranked losing teams of the conference championship games. In most years, that would probably be the traditional 6 AQ-BCS conferences, but would allow in some years for two from smaller conferences (TCU and Utah).

UNTflyer · December 11, 2008

Use the minor bowls as the host of the championship games, and progress up the bowl ladder to the national championship. We would still have 23 bowl games and we eliminate the crappy low-attendance bowls.

Now, given that my plan calls for 10 conferences, we'll just pretend the Sun Belt goes away and all those teams realign into the other conferences.

Conference Championship Bowls:

C-USA - Texas Bowl (Houston)

Mountain West - Las Vegas Bowl (Las Vegas)

WAC - New Mexico Bowl (Albuquerque)

MAC - EagleBank Bowl (Washington, DC)

Pac-10 - Emerald Bowl (San Francisco)

ACC - Meineke Car care Bowl (Charlotte)

Big 12 - Alamo Bowl (San Antonio)

Big East - St. Petersburg Bowl (St. Petersburg)

SEC - Papajohns.com Bowl (Birmingham)

Big 10 - Motor City Bowl (Detroit)

Regional Playoff:

Rounds 1:

East

- Chick-Fil-A Bowl (Atlanta)

- Gator Bowl (Jacksonville)

West

-Poinsettia Bowl (San Diego)

-Holiday Bowl (San Diego)

North

-Liberty Bowl (Memphis)

-Music City Bowl (Nashville)

South

- Capial One (Citrus) Bowl (Orlando)

- Outback Bowl (Tampa)

Regional Finals:

North - Rose Bowl

South - Sugar Bowl

East - Orange Bowl

West - Fiesta Bowl

National Championship:

Cotton Bowl (A southern location, indoors, and centrally located from the east and west coasts)

Eliminated bowls: Humanitarian, International, Hawaii, New Orleans, Champs, Armed Forces, Sun, Insight, GMAC

Edited December 11, 2008 by UNTflyer

gksmith · December 13, 2008

Till the end of the Bull Crap Series contract (I think 2012?) this is all fantasy. Most of the college presidents don't care (or at least the ones in the BCS) what players, coaches, or fans want. So long as they get their money....

I still fail to understand the Bull Crap Series layout. Did Boise State get powned? I thought they were in the top 10. So now two “non deserving” Bull Crap Series teams get to a BCS bowl (Texas Tech ineligible since they are the third team in the B12)? So there is only one “BCS buster?” ANOTHER reason I hate the way college football is run. We were better off before the Bull Crap Series…well…CRAP.

Here is a lay out for you: How about the 6 BCS conferences create their own football division and the other DI-A conferences create one. No body loves you unless you are part of that 6. It won’t effect recruiting since the greatest talent will still go to BCS schools. This way there is a chance for the non-BCS schools to get a little more recognition.