Monday, November 27, 2006

Why not have a college football playoff system?

Here is my opinion on how the College Football playoff system would work and thrive like its counterpart in Basketball...

Schedule-wise, you can even keep the bowl system, but play 15 of the games as part of the NCAA Football Playoffs. Wouldn't that make the smaller bowls more important? I think so.
My schedule would be as follows:

Play 8 games on 12/16 and 12/17 at neutral bowl sites.
Play 4 games on 12/23 and 12/24 at neutral bowl sites.
Play 2 games on 12/30 at neutral bowl sites.
Play Championship game on 1/8 at BCS Championship site.

Those are 4 weeks where the kids are out of school, so I don't want to hear any BULL that it affects schoolwork.

The game this year is being played on Monday, 1/8, so the championship game is not too late.
There is simply no excuse for this not to be the set up by 2010...when all the contracts with current bowls have run out I'm guessing.

You would take the winners of these conferences as locks:
Big 12
Big 10
Pac 10
Big East

You can keep the BCS, but use it as a guide, similar to how the RPI is used in hoops.
So this year's locks would be (For the sake of this post, I am assuming some of the teams will win this week)
ACC - Georgia Tech
Big 12 - Oklahoma
Big 10 - Ohio State
Big East - Louisville
SEC - Florida
Pac 10 - USC

Thos are the ONLY 6 locks. The other 10 are at-large bids. There could be a committee to pick the other teams. They could have "Seclection Sunday" and have it be really huge, just like the hoops.
So who would be the other 10 teams this year and where would everybody be ranked? Here's how my 16 teams would be seeded...

1) Ohio State
2) USC
3) Michigan
4) Florida
5) Wisconsin
6) LSU
7) Arkansas
8) Oklahoma
9) Louisville
10) Notre Dame
11) Boise State
12) Auburn
13) West Virginia
14) Tennessee
15) Virginia Tech
16) Georgia Tech

Some tough decisions to make there, but they were fun to figure out...much like the time leading up to March Madness. Next up, my NCAA Football Playoff schedule.

No comments: