Found this online. It is a link for the proposal to the BCS Committee for a Playoff. Very interesting.
http://ncaa2012.com/ncaamcfd16teamplan2_merged.pdf
What are your thoughts?
I believe that what we do in Division III is awesome by allowing teams to show themselves worthy on the field and not by voters and media.
Where is this proposal coming from?
Some parts of this are good (playoff system), but the majority of it is awful, specifically the conference realignment and the restriction that non-conference games have to be in region and the whole ranking system. I am not for eliminating rivalries and all that is good about the college football regular season. Does this mean that Air Force will never play Army or Navy again because they aren't in region? Or if Wisconsin and Minnesota got put in different conferences they couldn't play any more because Minnesota is considered a "patsy"? Just two examples of rivals that seem to be forbidden to play each other under this system.
I would like to see a system similar to D3 instituted, where each of the 11 conferences gets an automatic bid, leaving 5 at-large bids which are selected as the 5 highest ranked teams that are not conference champions using the existing BCS formula. This gives the high seeds an advantage by having easier early games, but keeps the sytem open to all teams.
This year's bracket would have looked something like this:
1 LSU vs. 16 Lousiana Tech
8 Kansas State vs. 9 Wisconsin
4 Stanford vs. 13 West Virginia
5 Oregon vs. 12 Southern Miss
6 Arkansas vs. 11 TCU
3 Oklahoma State vs. 14 Nothern Illinois
7 Boise St. vs. 10 Clemson
2 Alabama vs. 15 Arkansas State
Quote from: WashedUp on December 13, 2011, 01:42:21 PM
I would like to see a system similar to D3 instituted, where each of the 11 conferences gets an automatic bid, leaving 5 at-large bids which are selected as the 5 highest ranked teams that are not conference champions using the existing BCS formula. This gives the high seeds an advantage by having easier early games, but keeps the sytem open to all teams.
That's the exact system I've been in favor of for a few years now. And by keeping some of the remaining bowl games the other worthy teams still have a postseason game to look forward to (and it eliminates all the mediocre 6-6 teams playing each other)
A game between 6-6 teams would be more interesting than LSU vs. Louisiana Tech.
Quote from: frank uible on December 13, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
A game between 6-6 teams would be more interesting than LSU vs. Louisiana Tech.
And a basketball match up between two bubble teams would be more interesting than a Ohio State vs. UT-San Antonio matchup, but I've never heard anyone complain about the Final Four.
Quote from: frank uible on December 13, 2011, 05:35:29 PM
A game between 6-6 teams would be more interesting than LSU vs. Louisiana Tech.
Not necessarily. Sometimes there will be matchup issues that make the games compelling, just like the NCAA men's hoops tourney.
No matter what - every conference deserves a chance at the table just like D-3.
Quote from: WashedUp on December 13, 2011, 01:42:21 PM
Where is this proposal coming from?
Some parts of this are good (playoff system), but the majority of it is awful, specifically the conference realignment and the restriction that non-conference games have to be in region and the whole ranking system. I am not for eliminating rivalries and all that is good about the college football regular season. Does this mean that Air Force will never play Army or Navy again because they aren't in region? Or if Wisconsin and Minnesota got put in different conferences they couldn't play any more because Minnesota is considered a "patsy"? Just two examples of rivals that seem to be forbidden to play each other under this system.
I would like to see a system similar to D3 instituted, where each of the 11 conferences gets an automatic bid, leaving 5 at-large bids which are selected as the 5 highest ranked teams that are not conference champions using the existing BCS formula. This gives the high seeds an advantage by having easier early games, but keeps the sytem open to all teams.
This year's bracket would have looked something like this:
1 LSU vs. 16 Lousiana Tech
8 Kansas State vs. 9 Wisconsin
4 Stanford vs. 13 West Virginia
5 Oregon vs. 12 Southern Miss
6 Arkansas vs. 11 TCU
3 Oklahoma State vs. 14 Nothern Illinois
7 Boise St. vs. 10 Clemson
2 Alabama vs. 15 Arkansas State
I believe if this bracket was in effect this year, LSU would more than likely make it to the champioship game. As far as Alabama, they would have a tougher road. I believe Boise St. would beat Clemson and that would introduce a great second round matchup between Alabama and Boise St. with Boise St. now gaining some credibility by playing two top notch teams in back-to-back weekends. Also, with a win by Boise St. would be great, but a close loss would not hurt either. Then you could see possibly TCU/Arkansas v Oklahoma State, I believe Arkansas would win because of TCU weak secondary. Nevertheless, Oklahoma State v Arkansas would be a great match up. To sum everything up, you might see three SEC teams in the final four, then we can honestly say they are the best conference, because they proved it in tournament play.
Which is basically how we do it here.
We had No. 1 play No. 2 in the title game and win by 3 points, with all of the excitement that goes with playoff games (Wabash/NCC, Kean-Salisbury, Wesley vs. everyone) and none of the consternation about whether the correct teams were playing, were ranked, etc.
I've given less thought to whether D-I should adopt a playoff model this year & last year than any previous year. I've lost interest in caring, and I've come to enjoy playoff football even more over that time. Especially with D-III sending UW-W on the road, mixing up the national brackets, etc.
If you take a big-picture view, the playoffs are awesome and there is no disputing whether the correct teams played for the championship. Win-win.
D-I will eventually make the move. I say by 2020.
Am I the only one not interested the bowls this year? I used to like them, but seeing Boise State annilate poor 6-6 Arizona State was just downright lame. At 7th ranked, Boise was insulted with an ending to their season like that. I could only imagine what the players and coaches felt: "that was it?" After experiencing D3, I will never see the bowl system as being just. It is getting pathetic. ::) There MUST be a playoff system at some point in the future.
-Ski
Quote from: Teamski on December 28, 2011, 02:57:45 PM
Am I the only one not interested the bowls this year? I used to like them, but seeing Boise State annilate poor 6-6 Arizona State was just downright lame. At 7th ranked, Boise was insulted with an ending to their season like that. I could only imagine what the players and coaches felt: "that was it?" After experiencing D3, I will never see the bowl system as being just. It is getting pathetic. ::) There MUST be a playoff system at some point in the future.
-Ski
I don't think Boise can complain. They lost at home to a 2-loss TCU. If they played in D3, maybe TCU wouldn't play Baylor and Boise wouldn't play Georgia and the Boise-TCU matchup wouldn't mean nearly as much as they'd both probably be just fighting for playoff seeding rather than playing in a do-or-die game.
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 03:15:38 PM
Quote from: Teamski on December 28, 2011, 02:57:45 PM
Am I the only one not interested the bowls this year? I used to like them, but seeing Boise State annilate poor 6-6 Arizona State was just downright lame. At 7th ranked, Boise was insulted with an ending to their season like that. I could only imagine what the players and coaches felt: "that was it?" After experiencing D3, I will never see the bowl system as being just. It is getting pathetic. ::) There MUST be a playoff system at some point in the future.
-Ski
I don't think Boise can complain. They lost at home to a 2-loss TCU. If they played in D3, maybe TCU wouldn't play Baylor and Boise wouldn't play Georgia and the Boise-TCU matchup wouldn't mean nearly as much as they'd both probably be just fighting for playoff seeding rather than playing in a do-or-die game.
The same could be said for Wesley being a single loss team, but they still made the semis...... ;) The idea is that the bowl system is completely unfair to a load of really good teams that could vie for a legitimate championship. The current system is a money making joke.
-Ski
And it's not even the schools that are the ones making the money... http://www.orangeandwhite.com/news/2011/dec/26/clemsons-issues-selling-orange-bowl-tickets-spotli/?print=1 (http://www.orangeandwhite.com/news/2011/dec/26/clemsons-issues-selling-orange-bowl-tickets-spotli/?print=1)
In my experience, justice usually is caused to take a seat far in back of cash.
I would love to see an 8 team bracket in D1, with the games played at the higher seeded school up until the final. I also think the current BCS calculation would be perfect to select the at-large teams to the D1 playoffs. Take the champion of the major conferences as automatic qualifiers and then fill the bracket based on the BCS ranking. It would reward the conference champs and allow someone with 1 loss to still have a chance.
IMHO, a D1 football playoff would be bigger than March Madness in terms of TV revenue. Unfortunately what it is keeping it from occurring is the not the amount of money made by the bowls, but who gets the money. Right now the BCS conferences get the $ from the big bowls. If it goes to a NCAA sanctioned playoff, the money goes to the NCAA like it does from the basketball tournament. That is what is killing the playoff discussion in D1.
HSC - There are 11 conferences in D-1 and you can't exclude any of them to make it a legit tournament.
Quote from: smedindy on December 31, 2011, 06:36:23 PM
HSC - There are 11 conferences in D-1 and you can't exclude any of them to make it a legit tournament.
But it makes for a nice 16 team bracket with 11 AQ's and 5 at-large bids.
That would keep in the conference playoffs in play, especially for seeding.
It does, Ralph. And it saves room for the upstarts. Sure, it's unlikely the Sun Belt champ wins a game 19 times out of 20, but who would have thought Boise State would be Boise State in 2001?
Going from nothing to a full 16 team bracket would have zero chance of getting approved by the BCS schools. Starting with an 8 team bracket with AQ's to only BCS conferences has a chance of getting done.
Not going to argue against everyone having a chance to get it, but I would love to start with just 8. Let it go for a while and then 16 might be possible.
Anti-trust lawsuits may have a funny way of convincing them, though!
Quote from: HScoach on January 01, 2012, 10:29:41 AM
Going from nothing to a full 16 team bracket would have zero chance of getting approved by the BCS schools. Starting with an 8 team bracket with AQ's to only BCS conferences has a chance of getting done.
Not going to argue against everyone having a chance to get it, but I would love to start with just 8. Let it go for a while and then 16 might be possible.
Having 8 is a big step in the right direction. However, only having the AQ conference teams violates the NCAA agreement of every university/college having an equal chance of competing for a national championship. Even though the BCS says that each school has an equal chance, the formula definitely doesn't allow it even if every AQ school top team looses two games, the only way is that a non-AQ team has to go undefeated and every AQ top team has to have three losses (also no other team in that AQ conference has a better record). So just allowing each conference champ is the best step without controversy. Even the plus one has it controversy, because with this past/current season, I believe that Boise St would beat VT, Standford,Oklahoma St., Oregon, and Houston and given 6 weeks compete with both of those SEC teams.
Quote from: HScoach on December 31, 2011, 04:16:51 PM
I would love to see an 8 team bracket in D1, with the games played at the higher seeded school up until the final. I also think the current BCS calculation would be perfect to select the at-large teams to the D1 playoffs. Take the champion of the major conferences as automatic qualifiers and then fill the bracket based on the BCS ranking. It would reward the conference champs and allow someone with 1 loss to still have a chance.
IMHO, a D1 football playoff would be bigger than March Madness in terms of TV revenue. Unfortunately what it is keeping it from occurring is the not the amount of money made by the bowls, but who gets the money. Right now the BCS conferences get the $ from the big bowls. If it goes to a NCAA sanctioned playoff, the money goes to the NCAA like it does from the basketball tournament. That is what is killing the playoff discussion in D1.
this would probably be a bonanza for D3 tournaments. i'm thinking the new march madness contract had to help with our most recent more national playoff. If d3 got to spend bowl money too, we might get a fully seeded, fly anywhere tournament.
Quote from: AO on January 02, 2012, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: HScoach on December 31, 2011, 04:16:51 PM
I would love to see an 8 team bracket in D1, with the games played at the higher seeded school up until the final. I also think the current BCS calculation would be perfect to select the at-large teams to the D1 playoffs. Take the champion of the major conferences as automatic qualifiers and then fill the bracket based on the BCS ranking. It would reward the conference champs and allow someone with 1 loss to still have a chance.
IMHO, a D1 football playoff would be bigger than March Madness in terms of TV revenue. Unfortunately what it is keeping it from occurring is the not the amount of money made by the bowls, but who gets the money. Right now the BCS conferences get the $ from the big bowls. If it goes to a NCAA sanctioned playoff, the money goes to the NCAA like it does from the basketball tournament. That is what is killing the playoff discussion in D1.
this would probably be a bonanza for D3 tournaments. i'm thinking the new march madness contract had to help with our most recent more national playoff. If d3 got to spend bowl money too, we might get a fully seeded, fly anywhere tournament.
You are right, and at the same time that is the root of the problem. The big BCS schools don't want to share the money they generate. I can see both sides of it and wish there was an independent playoff, outside the NCAA but truly open to all D1 conferences. Of course, we all know what happened to the NIT, which was essentially just that...
I decided that I am not going to watch this years BCS championship game. However, I am hoping the Alabama beats LSU and we can start talking about who deserves to be the National champion, out of all the 1-loss teams.
Quote from NCAA President (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7457227/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-says-back-4-team-bcs-football-playoff):
Quote"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."
Um, all of the other divisions have 32-team playoffs and the players seem to be handling it fairly well...
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on January 13, 2012, 06:07:57 AM
Quote from NCAA President (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7457227/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-says-back-4-team-bcs-football-playoff):
Quote"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."
Um, all of the other divisions have 32-team playoffs and the players seem to be handling it fairly well...
'"
In addition to all of the other divsions having a 32-team playoff, Division III has the ECAC Bowls in the east for teams who did not qualify for the tournament. I had the opportunity in playing in both the tournament and ECAC Bowls and I have to say when we were not selected to play in the tournament, it hurt, but then getting selected to play in the ECAC Bowl help a little, especially when your selected to play against a team you have never played against before.
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on January 13, 2012, 06:07:57 AM
Quote from NCAA President (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7457227/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-says-back-4-team-bcs-football-playoff):
Quote"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."
Um, all of the other divisions have 32-team playoffs and the players seem to be handling it fairly well...
Not quite:
D-2 has 24 teams, D-1AA has 20.
*Disclaimer: I am a huge supporter of the non-AQ schools and hate the arbitrary distinction that has prevented Boise State and TCU from getting an adequate shot at the title. I also think that it's laughable how stuck-up fans of many AQ conferences are, continuing to insist that those schools "couldn't compete every week" in some of the big conferences, when much of the objective on-field evidence suggests that the top-tier small schools are every bit as good as even the best AQ schools.
With that said, re: the 8 vs. 16 discussion, I've always thought that there was a realistic way to keep the "AQ" conferences' advantage and still allow room
8-team version:
6 "Pool A" bids (BCS conferences)
1 "Pool B" bid (highest-ranked non-BCS conference champ)
1 "Pool C" bid (highest-ranked team not yet in field)
16-team version:
11 automatic bids (all conference champs)
5 at-large bids (either selected by committee or by a version of the BCS rankings)
I know that there are OTHER factors that play into this discussion - this is just fun hypothetical conversation that leaves out where the dollars go, et cet. I also know that the changing landscape of which teams are in which conference has made this pretty badly outdated by now. But I would have enjoyed that 8-team format back in the 2006-07-08 years.
Quote from: smedindy on January 13, 2012, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on January 13, 2012, 06:07:57 AM
Quote from NCAA President (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7457227/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-says-back-4-team-bcs-football-playoff):
Quote"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."
Um, all of the other divisions have 32-team playoffs and the players seem to be handling it fairly well...
Not quite:
D-2 has 24 teams, D-1AA has 20.
My bad. I guess what I am saying is that with a 10 Game Schedule + 32 Team Playoffs
Only 2 Teams will play 15 Games
Only 4 Teams will play 14 Games
Only 8 Teams will play 13 Games
Etc...
D1 already has teams playing 12 Game Schedules, + Conference Championship, + Bowl Game. Reduce the schedule back to 10 or 11 games and have a 16 Team (at least) Tournament, and it wouldn't affect the players as much as he is stating in his interview:
Quote"Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year
Quote from: SUADC on January 13, 2012, 10:40:33 AM
In addition to all of the other divsions having a 32-team playoff, Division III has the ECAC Bowls in the east for teams who did not qualify for the tournament. I had the opportunity in playing in both the tournament and ECAC Bowls and I have to say when we were not selected to play in the tournament, it hurt, but then getting selected to play in the ECAC Bowl help a little, especially when your selected to play against a team you have never played against before.
Ditto. I played in the 2006 playoffs (as a junior) and an ECAC bowl in 2007 (as a senior). While it was frustrating to lose a few games as a senior, playing the bowl game against a new opponent was certainly worthwhile.
If Division I ever adopts a playoff system (8 or 16 teams), I would support the continuation of the existing bowl system to reward non-playoff teams in the same fashion (although I would probably require any "bowl" teams to have at least seven wins over Division I-A opponents).
Re: Kira & Jaxon's dad,
I agree completely. I've always found it humorous when the "intrusion on the school year" argument is brought up. So holding a 65-team basketball tournament (which occurs smack in the middle of an academic semester) in which EVERY participant likely misses Thursday/Friday class on the opening weekend, participants on all Sweet 16 teams miss those classes for TWO straight weekends, and participants in the Final Four miss class for THREE straight weekends is less of an "intrusion" than holding a 16-team football playoff which would require virtually ZERO missed classes?*
*This is something that's often ignored, and I've never understood why: if the playoff games are all played on Saturdays, then the players would never HAVE to miss a class. At worst, they would miss Friday classes (which is no different than what happens during the year for virtually all NCAA athletes, even Division II and Division III level). The NCAA could even stipulate that teams cannot depart before, say, 7:00 PM on the Thursday before the game, to ensure that all players could at the very least attend their Thursday classes.
I know that I'm making some leaps of faith by even assuming that SEC players actually GO to class (zing!), but just humor me. What am I missing? Isn't the "academic" argument pretty much a shamockery?
Re: the "physical" toll, I also agree that there's an easy solution: reduce the regular-season schedule to 10 games. Make it so all the big boys play only 2 nonconference "gimme" games and then their 8-game conference schedule.
Of course, this will never happen - the major powers will never give up the income that they get from holding 7-8 home games per year with the 12-game schedule.
Even under the existing system, I think that it's a little silly to argue that Division I players couldn't stand up to a few more games when a) the NCAA added the 12th game to the schedule a few years ago and b) virtually every high-school football team that goes deep into their state playoffs ends up playing 14 or more games.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 13, 2012, 12:12:44 PM
Re: Kira & Jaxon's dad,
I agree completely. I've always found it humorous when the "intrusion on the school year" argument is brought up. So holding a 65-team basketball tournament (which occurs smack in the middle of an academic semester) in which EVERY participant likely misses Thursday/Friday class on the opening weekend, participants on all Sweet 16 teams miss those classes for TWO straight weekends, and participants in the Final Four miss class for THREE straight weekends is less of an "intrusion" than holding a 16-team football playoff which would require virtually ZERO missed classes?*
*This is something that's often ignored, and I've never understood why: if the playoff games are all played on Saturdays, then the players would never HAVE to miss a class. At worst, they would miss Friday classes (which is no different than what happens during the year for virtually all NCAA athletes, even Division II and Division III level). The NCAA could even stipulate that teams cannot depart before, say, 7:00 PM on the Thursday before the game, to ensure that all players could at the very least attend their Thursday classes.
I know that I'm making some leaps of faith by even assuming that SEC players actually GO to class (zing!), but just humor me. What am I missing? Isn't the "academic" argument pretty much a shamockery?
Basketball players are smarter than football players. 8-) No traveshamockery there.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 13, 2012, 12:12:44 PM
Re: Kira & Jaxon's dad,
I know that I'm making some leaps of faith by even assuming that SEC players actually GO to class (zing!), but just humor me. What am I missing? Isn't the "academic" argument pretty much a shamockery?
YES :D
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20120220-carlton-meeting-of-bcs-minds-has-college-football-inching-closer-to-playoff.ece?action=reregister
Quote from: Gray Fox on February 21, 2012, 05:24:49 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20120220-carlton-meeting-of-bcs-minds-has-college-football-inching-closer-to-playoff.ece?action=reregister
What a shame you have to be a DMN subscriber to read this ... :-(
Here is a shorter version. Maybe it will work. Otherwise I will send you a copy.
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/meeting-of-bcs-minds-has-college-footbal.html
Quote from: Gray Fox on February 21, 2012, 07:35:12 PM
Here is a shorter version. Maybe it will work. Otherwise I will send you a copy.
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/meeting-of-bcs-minds-has-college-footbal.html
Still doesn't work:(:(
I think that BCS is considering only having 12 teams compete for a playoff. The Scenario would be:
The SEC, BIG10, PAC 12, BIG 12 Each get a bye in round one. And then the Winner of Sun Belt v. C-USA plays SEC in round two, Ind v. Big East plays BIG10 in round two, WAC v. MWC plays PAC12 in Round two, and ACC v. MAC play BIG12 in round two. However, the Sun Belt, C-USA , Ind, B-East, WAC, MWC, ACC, and MAC conference champion has to be have a top 15 BCS ranking to qualify for the playoff. Therfore, if they're not in the Top 15 of the BCS then the next highest BCS team jumps in as an at-large. As for the Top-Four conference, a bye is either dictated based on your conferences OOC schedule wins & losses.
Quote from: Gray Fox on February 21, 2012, 05:24:49 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20120220-carlton-meeting-of-bcs-minds-has-college-football-inching-closer-to-playoff.ece?action=reregister
Kindly excuse my flippancy, but why ought we care what happens in D1 (unless, of course, it somehow impinges on D3)?
Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 23, 2012, 05:20:27 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on February 21, 2012, 05:24:49 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20120220-carlton-meeting-of-bcs-minds-has-college-football-inching-closer-to-playoff.ece?action=reregister
Kindly excuse my flippancy, but why ought we care what happens in D1 (unless, of course, it somehow impinges on D3)?
Because most of us love football a any level. I would like to see D1 in a play-off system using the bowls and stop rewarding teams with 6 wins a post season game. IMHO a D1 play-off would bring some excitement back to the post season, just like March Madness does for bball.
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on January 13, 2012, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 13, 2012, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on January 13, 2012, 06:07:57 AM
Quote from NCAA President (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7457227/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-says-back-4-team-bcs-football-playoff):
Quote"The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one," Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. "Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now."
Um, all of the other divisions have 32-team playoffs and the players seem to be handling it fairly well...
Not quite:
D-2 has 24 teams, D-1AA has 20.
My bad. I guess what I am saying is that with a 10 Game Schedule + 32 Team Playoffs
Only 2 Teams will play 15 Games
Only 4 Teams will play 14 Games
Only 8 Teams will play 13 Games
Etc...
D1 already has teams playing 12 Game Schedules, + Conference Championship, + Bowl Game. Reduce the schedule back to 10 or 11 games and have a 16 Team (at least) Tournament, and it wouldn't affect the players as much as he is stating in his interview:
Quote"Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that's too much to ask a young man's body to do. It's too many games, it intrudes into the school year
The problem in your proposal is limiting the regular season to 10 or 11 game. There's just no way BCS schools will give up regular season home games. They are a cash cow for them. And they're realizing the same with the Championship Games...TV money is tough to say goodbye to.
I would
love to see a playoff. I'm not as hardcore that everyone has to be represented. Mostly, I want to see good football that decides a champion on the field. I have little interest seeing an 8-4 Sun Belt team get mopped by a 12-1 SEC team. I'm open to the idea of access for the lower conferences, but think there's nothing wrong with them having to earn it on the field. To make the playoff, a team should have a loss limit. And I think they should eliminate games against FCS schools, but again, the money factor would never allow this.
Bottom line, get rid of the BCS. I wanted to see Nebraska versus Michigan in 1997, Nebraska versus PSU in 1994, etc. (can you tell I'm a Huskers fan ;D). I think Boise State would have made some fun runs in a playoff the last few years. Even if they couldn't win it all, it would absolutely legitimize them on the national stage.