BCS "Final 4" Play-off System

chamrocck

chamrocck

All-American
My apologies if this has been discussed lately but in light of all the Boise St. talk and if they should have a chance at the national championship, my answer would be "No". Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love how Boise St. played and how they beat OU. What an incredible game! And I like the fact that it was to be crowned the winner of the Fiesta Bowl...not to be a first round win in a weekly play-off. You hear that a lot...that a play-off would ruin the bowl system. And that a play-off would ruin the regular season.

So, am I anti-play-off? Absolutely not! I used to favor an 8 team play-off but now favor what I call the BCS "Final 4". It would take the final 4 teams in the BCS rankings at the end of regular season (prior to bowl season) and let them play an extra week on "Final 4" Saturday...this is typically a dead sports weekend (yes, they give out the Heisman but that's it). This would now become a monster Saturday for college football. The team ranked #1 gets home field and plays #4 while #2 gets home field and plays #3. This eliminates the argument that there has to be a neutral field and fans won't travel to multiple locations in a weekly playoff. It gives incentive for teams to finish #1 or #2 while allowing #3 and #4 a legitimate shot. And it still incorporates the BCS system (like it or hate it...it generates a lot of discussion...going to a Final 4 would smooth out the kink of having those extra couple of teams that feel they get shafted each year...now they get a legitimate shot). But what about #5 or #6...if you aren't in the Final 4, have a great bowl game...I don't want to expand it too much because then the regular season and conference championships lose luster. Sorry USC...you are great but you needed to beat UCLA (regular season)...sorry Arkansas (you had a good year but you lost to Florida in SEC Champ). I don't want those games to not mean anything and I think they might lose something if you know you just need to finish in top 8. There is always going to be argument at the cutoff point.

After these games are played on that Saturday to see how it all plays out, the bowls can still choose their teams as they have always done...thus eliminating the argument that a playoff would ruin the bowl system. Now, of course #1 and #2 get to play in the BCS Championship as we are seeing this year. The bowl system would not be disrupted and for instance this year we would still have seen that great Fiesta Bowl match-up of Boise St. and OU because neither finished in top 4 of BCS rankings. So is that unfair to Boise St.? Perhaps...but it would mean teams like this need to schedule some tougher non-conference competition (if the belief...true or not...is that they are undefeated because their conference is weak). A team like Boise St. would have to beat some tougher non-conference opponents, reach the Final 4, and beat 2 of the Final 4. If they do that, yes they are #1. Any team can pull off a one game miracle. But if you are in Top 4 of BCS poll at end of regular season and then go on to beat 2 of the top 4 teams, then you are clearly #1. You don't need 8 teams to make that work and get a true #1.

Keep it simple...this adds one extra weekend for 4 teams...thus eliminating argument that the season cannot take on additional weeks (and the season is not extended deep into January). This system keeps the bowl system in tact as well as the conference championships in tact. I love regular season college football because every weekend is already a play-off atmosphere. Having an 8 team play-off turns college football more into pro style (which I watch less and less of each year as it isn't until play-offs when it becomes interesting). I think a college football "Final 4" works! :corndance

 
I love your idea. Just wondering about the losers of the two first round games. Would they play each other in another bowl or would the bowls have conference tie-ins like they do now. Either way would work.

 
gamecocks said:
I love your idea. Just wondering about the losers of the two first round games. Would they play each other in another bowl or would the bowls have conference tie-ins like they do now. Either way would work.
Click to expand...
I did think about this and would have the bowls keep conference tie-ins rather than have the 2 first round losers automatically paired up in an entirely new bowl. Now in some cases the situation may just play out where the 2 losers meet up in an existing BCS bowl but I don't think it should be locked that way. First, you will have 2 teams that just lost their chance to be #1 so both sets of fans will likely be upset and may not want to go see a game where they win to be #3, so to speak. Rather, I would "re-package" those 2 first round losers and look for intriguing match-ups for them...that way they can play an entirely fresh new program where winner is crowned champion of a major BCS bowl and get excitement towards that. Pairing up the 2 losers (who are now likely carrying less desirable rankings and having them play in what their fans would see as a consolation bowl) seems to me it might have the makings of a dud sometimes if you lock it that way. Also, it sort of locks out other teams who had good years that were not ranked in Top Final 4 from penetrating higher than #5 in the final rankings because the feeling generated may be that only those Final 4 teams made "the play-offs" and thus everyone else is a notch below. I'm not interested so much in creating a separate "mini-playoffs" as I am in crowning a true, legitimate #1. I think my system would achieve that.

 
There is one and ONLY one fair playoff system. A 16 team set up with all 11 conference champs getting an automatic bid with 5 wild-card seeds. With the games played at the home team's campus. It would more or less be an end to the bowl games, at least with them having any meaning at all(they would be more like the NIT)

The 4 game BSC thing, or the +1 wont ever get through.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top