I would like to address this, along with Mountainman's comment, that every game should matter, in the regular season, and I agree with that statement, they 'should' matter, which really gives more argument toward limiting the BCS 'championship' field to ten teams, all conference champions, but outside of that happening, I'll accept the present model, for selection purposes.Spence wrote:Lets assume that the BCS works well and will always work to perfection. All the woulda coulda shoulda makes my head hurt. Play-offs could be instituted and made to work. Play-offs would be good for the top 8 or 10 teams in the country. Play-offs would be good for the traditional powers of college football because they would have the most chances at the play-offs every year. Play-offs would give you one, true national championship.
Play-offs would kill the bowls because of the money that would have to be paid to support the play-offs. They would kill the bowls because they would have to be played regionally instead of having teams travel across country for one game. They would take needed money and television exposure away from the mid-majors. They would kill recruiting by the mid majors because the top player the mid majors get now would try to walk-on at the bigger programs to get a chance at exposure.
CLF, playoffs wouldn't be set up like you want them to be, they would be set up the exact same way as the BCS is set up now. If they wanted to give wider access to the mid-majors they already would have done it.
Sometimes we don't have one. "true"national champion in CFB. It doesn't hurt the sport not to have one. It creates controversy and gets people interested. CFB is the most popular college sport for a reason.
Now, I need to address Spence's argument that somehow the BCS 'playoff' model would necessarily ruin the bowls, financially. I disagree with that, because if that were true, it would have already happened. People wouldn't care about games that aren't part of the BCS, or in other words, they should all 'die' off, financially-speaking, so your premise is unsubstantiated. You even tried, unsuccessfully, to put TCU the 'doghouse' suggesting somehow they wouldn't fill a stadium. Well, I don't have the figures in front of me, but my impression is the Houston Bowl was a sell-out, but I could be mistaken, I never saw the figures. But I"m sure they're available somewhere. TCU sold their allotment, then asked for something like 4,000 more, no that's not OSU figures, but it means they were marketable. Iowa St. I believe, sold their allotment, and any they returned were likely bought by TCU fans, but again I don't have access to the numbers. So, I only ask that you be fair in your analysis, Spence, not that you aren't entitled to your opinion.
But using TCU as a barometer for 'lackadaisicalness' probably won't work very well. I will grant you, however, it was almost like playing in Ft. Worth, or in other words, something of a 'home' game for the Frogs.
That being said, you, nor I have sufficient evidence to suggest somehow TCU wouldn't have filled the Fiesta Bowl, so unless you can provide that kind of evidence, let's ignore it, ok? Fair is fair.
Now, what I propose isn't as much a 'playoff' in the traditional sense of the word, as it is a compromise between the bowl enthusiasts and those who want an 'all-out' playoff, varying from 8 to 64 teams. I prefer utlizing the BCS 'model' which necessitates making it a ten-team field.
Should that ever change, then the model would have to reflect that, or else the BCS is useless.
In effect I propose the BCS implement a 9 game 'format' whereby the most qualified teams 'meet' in the BCS title game. That isn't to say, its' perfect, in fact it's not. More conference championship games would serve to make the BCS 'simpler' to arrange, but as you already mentioned, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee 'quality' in pairings.
So, it is in fact a 'compromise' between a legitimate playoff, and keeping the BCS 'as-is'. So, it shouldn't be viewed as 'infallable'. I imagine there are even more permutations than the one Mountainman imagined.
For example, if it's based entirely on BCS ranking it's possible, although somewhat unlikely, two conference 'runners-up' advance to the title game.
Anyone remember 2003, when Oklahoma made the BCS after losing to KSU? Well, if memory serves, Oklahoma lost, but had an opportunity late in the game to beat LSU, despite being outplayed most of the game.
It's possible, although somewhat unlikely Ohio St. and Oklahoma advance to the title game. But, if nothing else, the championship will be determined by what happens on the field, and won't be settled by an arbitrator.
Tha'ts all I'm getting at. Mountainman wasn't out of line 'dreaming' up an unlikely scenario, that's what good prognosticators do. As unlikely as that may sound, it's likely to happen every 50 years or so, if not more.
So there may be a disadvantage to having a 'playoff' but if that's the only one, I'll take it over what's being used presently. 9 games, would give 'fair' opportunity to ten teams. Teams like Ohio St.(2003) and W. Virginia (2005) might even have won it all, under that arrangement.
And if nothing else, it allows for greater participation, through a BCS rank.