IF it were 2014....

Put this rule in and you can kiss the SEC goodbye, which means you can kiss the playoff goodbye. The SEC has two teams in the top four just about every year and isn't about to give up that spot.

 

I guess instead of "automatic bids" you just say, "We don't care what conference you're in, but you have to be the champion." Doesn't necessarily mean you get in BECAUSE you're the champion, but it means you have to be the champion to get in. I see both ends of this argument and it's a little annoying when you get into it.

 

But that's ignoring what happened on the field. Why even play Stanford-Oregon?

Conference champs only, I'd say.

 

What?

I am saying, what if the season ends like this:

Southern Cal beats Notre Dame
Georgia Tech beats Georgia
Stanford beats UCLA the first time
Florida beats Florida State
Oregon beats Oregon State
Georgia beats Alabama
UCLA beats Stanford in the Pac-12 title game

Your BCS top four:

1. Florida
2. Oregon
3. Notre Dame
4. Kansas State

 

Could you not create a rule that basically says "if you finished behind x team in whatever standings", and that team doesn't make the playoff, you don't either?

I'm sure that would create some circles of hell, but it would avoid the situation of Florida sneaking in because Georgia loses while Florida is idle, even though Georgia playing is the direct result of having beaten Florida.

 

You look close enough at Florida's games, and there's no way they sniff a national semifinals. An often inept offense, and too close of results against several inferior opponents.

 

But remember, there's no BCS points system. National semifinals by committee. So Georgia losing to Georgia Tech would more than be canceled out by a Georgia win over Alabama.

 

That is a great point.

I have a feeling parity is going to make seasons like this the rule rather than the exception. So the controversy and rage are only going to increase from the one team per year that feels snubbed under the current system to about six that have a case under the new one. Can't wait.

 

Yeah, that's my thinking, too. They certainly don't get style points.

As far as conference champions only, it's hard to support a hard and fast rule. What I would say is that you CANNOT lose your conference title game and still get in. Of course, that makes it more attractive not to win your division (Oregon, Florida) and avoid a tough conference title game altogether.

Everyone says "take the four best teams". But how do you determine which teams those are? It's never going to be cut and dried.

For this year: Notre Dame, Alabama/Georgia winner, Florida/FSU winner, Oregon or Kansas State. Still a lot to be decided.

 

I used to be a big believer in the status quo, save the bowl system, all that.

Then, I got sucked into following Division III football. I love the 32-team playoff they have and the excitement generated by it.

Things won't really be workable until there's a 16-team tournament, every conference gets an automatic bid (even the MAC & Sun Belt), at-large bids passed out to the remaining 5 teams. We'd still be arguing about who #17 should be, and that a few schools shouldn't be in (like, you know, the Sun Belt champ), but it's the only really workable solution ... and it might slow down some of the conference-jumping that's going on.

(1) Notre Dame (at-large) vs. (16) Arkansas State/MTSU (Sun Belt champ)
(2) Alabama/Georgia (SEC champ) vs. (15) Utah State (WAC champ)
(3) Oregon (Pac-12 champ) vs. (14) Tulsa/UCF (CUSA champ)
(4) Georgia/Alabama (at-large) vs. (13) Kent State/Northern Illinois (MAC champ)
(5) Kansas State (Big 12 champ) vs. (12) Boise State (MWC champ)
(6) Florida (at-large) vs. (11) Rutgers (Big East champ)
(7) Clemson/Florida State (ACC champ) vs. (10) Nebraska/Michigan/Stanford (at-large)
(8 ) Nebraska/Michigan (Big Ten) vs. (9) Stanford/Clemson/FSU (at-large)

 

That's never going to happen.

 

Lovie Smith's Bears would still be getting embarrassed by the NFL's best.