Originally posted by Melanerpes
I am routing for anything that gets us closer to having a playoff system. Boise St has been challenging the BCS order for several years - and last year, Utah got into the mix. Now we need another 2-3 of these teams to join in.
OR -- we need to have several teams all go undefeated, making the current process of choosing the top two teams even more con bubble" -- and George Mason showed that even a bubble team can make it to the Final Four.
I don't understand why there's so much resistance to the playoff system. Who would really argue with something like this:
1) Take the top 4 performing conferences from each year and the following year, each winner of those 4 gets a berth in one of the BCS bowls. You could even make it based on geography (the Pac 10 winner to the Rose, the SEC winner to the Sugar, etc.).
2) At the end of the season, seed the 4 conference winners based on BCS ranking, as it is calculated now
3) Take the 4 top BCS ranked teams who didn't win one of those conferences and seed them 1 through 4.
4) Have the 1 seeded conference winner play the 4 seeded at large team, etc. All 4 games could be held on Jan 1/ Jan 2.
5) Re-seed the 4 winners and have them play in 2 of the BCS venues on Jan. 8 (or on the closest Saturday- your choice).
6) The 2 winners play the championship game a week later at a third BCS venue.
The venues for the semis and finals would rotate among the 4 BCS bowls.
Who really loses based on this system? You settle it on the field and prevent disgraces like Utah not getting a chance to win in spite of a perfect season. You also preserve the importance of being a great conference.
Will there be arguments about the last teams to make the cut in the top 8? Sure. But, that's a heck of a lot better than having arguments as to who got snubbed a shot at the title game.