Could Mark Cuban be college football's savior?

Even the most ardent playoff backers think that it would only work if you included all the conference champions. So it would probably be something like No. 16 Troy (or whoever won the Sun Belt) vs. No. 1 Auburn and No. 15 Miami (Ohio) vs. No. 2 Oregon, etc. in the first round.

 

I'm all for anyone who can get the process going. I'd be lying if I said Cuban would be my first pick to get the playoff going, but I'm at the point now where I don't care who it is, as long as it gets done.

I would get rid of or move up the conference title games and start the playoff the first Saturday in December.

Play the first three Saturdays and play the Championship on Jan. 1 at a neutral site, but preferrably one like The Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl.

The only thing I can't decide on is whether to have the second round at campus sites.

I think the Final Four on would have to be all at neutral sites. I think it would be cool if the second round were in places like Dallas, Orlando, Atlanta, Kansas City, San Antonio, places like that.

 

I think it is more telling that he hasn't finished the book and came up with this.

 

The big football conferences make a shit-ton of money from bowls, enough that Cuban himself won't be able to make up the difference. As long as conferences split proceeds, it's a better deal to have seven schools in bowls than one or two teams in a playoff. Plus, alums only have to travel for one game, during the holidays. The day someone can demonstrably prove to the big schools that a playoff would make more money than the bowl system -- and that they, and not the NCAA, gets to control the playoff structure -- is the day the BCS dies.

 

If that's what we have to do, I'll live with it, but what would you rather see, Oklahoma State vs. Auburn or Auburn vs. Troy?

This isn't basketball, you're not going to see upsets like you see in the NCAA Tournament. I say take the top 16 teams regardless of conference. If that means eight SEC teams make it, then so be it.

 

Keep the bowls for teams 17-72 or whatever it is. Play them during the week in December. Give us some decent games to watch Christmas week.

 

Or the 2nd round could be the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, which would allow those games to remain as prominent fixtures of the college football landscape.

And as you mentioned earlier, the lower tier bowls for the lesser quality teams could remain as they are and have their 6-6 team showdowns just like now.

 

Exactly. After the first round there would be seven games. Why can't those be Capital One Bowl, Chick Fil-A Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl?

 

I like the 12-team idea he mentioned. I've never thought one extra home game was going to be enough incentive. But a week off is a huge deal. Love it in the NFL -- the top teams get a major and well-deserved advantage.

But I don't know how this would fit with including the Sun Belt, C-USA ... and the Big East

 

There are honestly so many options that would be better than what we have.
8 team playoff, 12 team playoff, 16 team playoff.
Playoff only. Playoff plus bowls. Playoff at bowl sites. Playoff at bowl sites with first round home field advantage. Playoff just with homefield advantage. Playoff with the final rotating between the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar.

BTW, the fifth BCS game was a dumb idea. Maybe the dumbest of all.

 

I agree, but the majority of playoff support is going to come from the non-BCS schools. If their champions are excluded from the playoff, how is the new system any better for them?

Politically, I think everyone in the FBS has to be included for a playoff to even hope to get enough support. Even then, it would be tough.