Posted by tngeoff on January 5, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed.

Posted by noexcuses on January 5, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen

Posted by douglasawilliams on January 5, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the idea. This would get the major bowls back to their natural tie-ins. However, to be fair to fans of those lucky final four teams the highest seed would play a home game just like they do in the NFL and in division 2-3. Even the championship game should be a high seed home game. This will ensure fans will travel to bowl games and still have a chance to be there if their team advances into the final four. Imagine a championship game at Neeland stadium in mid-January. Let those kids play in the cold the way football should be played. Why should only Miami, Los Angeles, Pheonix or New Orleans host a championship game? And one other wrinkle let 5 bowls be considered for the final four say the Citrus Bowl. So out of 10 teams pick four and everyone could live with this system. Then teams like USC or Georgia could still be in the hunt for a true national champion. It isn't perfect but no system is. Maybe this year the Rose Bowl would have hosted OSU vs USC and not Illinois.

Posted by mtnvol on January 5, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only problem I see with this is the tickets. In BB, each school gets only a small handful of tickets, as most go to the supporters ($) in the city hosting the games. Thompson-Boling is on the large side of venues able to host a weekend, and there are only 20,000 seats. Besides, its easier to sell 1,000 tix to fans than 30,000.

Posted by bubbanator21 on January 5, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scrap the whole thing. Start a 16 team playoff like every other division in college football. Have the higher seed host each game, so you don't have half empty stadiums like most bowls. Make Notre Dame join the Big 10, oddly enough giving them 12 teams and a conference championship game. No one other than ND purist care about 'tradition'. Start the week after the conference championships and end by early January. If you not in the top 16, you have no claim to the National Title anyway. Does anyone honestly care that some team is the Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl Champion? No, they just want the win and the money.

Posted by murrayvol on January 5, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Agreed." "Amen." "I like the idea." "The only problem I see with this is the tickets."

If only it were so easy! The Big 10 (11 and praying for Notre Dame) and Pac 10 hold the keys to this car and they ain't givin' em up boys. The Granddaddy of all bowl games has the BCS cake baked just the way they like it and have no interest in playing second fiddle to the Final Four of college football. At least not in my lifetime.

I will say they might have flinched just a bit while USC was nuking Illinois last Tuesday.

Posted by marc_ash on January 5, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Forget the traditionalist mentality if you are talking about what is fair. Because if you are truely talking about fairness, then the bowl system isn't. What IS fair is to do what every other sport does...have a playoff.

I live in Chattanooga and have been fortunate enough to have a great friend that works with App States football team. I've gone to all of the NC games for the past 3 years that are played here in town. It is an amazing event and there isn't one person talking about how fair/unfair things are because its settled on the field. Every other sport has a playoff except D-1 football. What a joke.

Now, if you want to keep your bowl games then do so. Fine, I'm ok with that. HOWEVER, make a system that allows for the top...say...8-12 teams (give or take) to have a playoff. I THINK D-1A has 16 but don't quote me. Have the playoff system and let everyone else left out play in their bowls. A sort of NIT if you will. We have already established that bowl games really are meaningless anyway (see today's International bowl).

This whole thing as we know is about $$$$. Unless the masses can make a playoff financially worth while to schools, it will never happen. Pretty sad too..because USC/Illinios and GA/Hawaii just tipped the iceberg of who does NOT belong in a BCS bowl.

Hey Ohio State...you listening?

Posted by jamcdaniel79 on January 5, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

something needs to be done. UGA and USC need to be shown as frauds. We need to know how good Missou and Kansas are.....and how good would be to see how well WVU could do with that run attach...awesome to watch.

anything (including scraping the whole system) is better than what we have now.

Posted by marc_ash on January 5, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When I was younger my uncle informed me of a thing called DAT-Digital Audio Tape. It was amazing technology that was initially released by the Japanese in the early 80's. This technology was far superior to CD's because you got digital sound and you could record on them (like old casette tapes). I asked him, if this technology was better, cheaper and more marketable then why not have DAT's in America. His response was "Because their is a greater market for lesser technology".

I didn't completely understand what he was saying until I got older and saw the progression of goods/services sold. Greater advancements are selling all over the world, but because there is money in lesser things first, capitalism dictates we go that route to make the biggest dollar.

That appears to be what the BCS is. There IS a better system out there...but nobody wants to use it yet because the old (out of date technology) is still making $$$$$. I'm afraid we are in for many more frustrating years of the BCS. We see the better product in D-1A football playoff. It will just take some time for the "old" technology of the BCS to run its course. The new is already out there...we just have to wait for it to be lucrative enough to jump to it.

Posted by VOLinDAWGland on January 5, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Packer's suggestion is the best one I've seen that balances the old bowl system with the advantages of a more legit championship decision. Given the money and influence of the bowls, I doubt they're going away anytime soon so better figure out how to work with/around them. I hate the current BCS system, would just as soon go back to the bad old days where everyone debated/argued about who the NC should be after all the traditional bowl tie-ins were played. BCS is what happens when a problem is solved by a committee.

Posted by Volalumnus on January 5, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only part I didn't like was the statement to take the highest 4 ranked after the bowls.
I wouldn't want to see one of the losers of the bowls get to move to the next round.
Keep it simple - the 4 winners only.

Posted by eefor10c on January 5, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You would think that the Rose Bowl would be interested in getting the best possible game rather than a second fiddle team from either the PAC 10 or the Big 11. They got exactly what they deserved this year, a big blow out when they could have had USC vs UGA.

Posted by volnmdtn on January 5, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Packer , you have the right idea. I would like to see it expanded to 16 teams but any type of playoff would be better than what we have now.

Posted by marc_ash on January 5, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eefor10c...Nobody in college sports cares one bit about getting the best game accept the fans and the teams themselves. It's all about money, and the Rose Bowl committee, Universities, conferences, etc. only care about the dollar. That was evident in USC/Illinois and GA/Hawaii.

Posted by reg_mza on January 5, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So are we saying have a college football season as long as the NFL, no bye weeks, and extend it almost a couple of weeks short of the Super Bowl?

And another thing, since it's obvious that big businesses sponsor these bowl games, just how in the world is someone going to convince these big businesses that advertise their butts off with these bowl games that they should give all that up for the love of the game?

I'm all for a play off system similar to D I-AA or DII or DIII, but feasibly who's going to placate the powers that be that put up millions for all of this? Until that one is answer, the BCS will most likely stay.

Posted by Homermoosevols on January 5, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you make each big conference have a championship game and then you reward the winner of each championship game. That would force Notre Dame to join the Big 10. After you have 4 conference winners you seed them according to their rank in the polls. Then you have two at-large bids for the weaker conference i.e. MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, etc. You base these two seeds depending upon AP rank. The 2 byes would go to the highest ranked teams. Then you could have bowl games and a playoff system. Just my opinion but if you don't win your conference championship you shouldn't be playing for a national championship. Period.

Posted by Homermoosevols on January 5, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It wouldn't be 4 conference winners...sorry..I forgot to add the Big East and ACC.

Posted by mfoust on January 5, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Three straight weeks of travel for fans is way too much. You're going to have empty seats those first two weeks, because fans are simply going to hope their teams makes it to the championship and sit it out until then.

How many people on this board have the money -- and time off work -- to go to, say, New Orleans, Pasadena and then Miami on three straight weekends?

Comparing this to basketball is nuts. For the NCAA tournament, you have 6-8 teams filling a 20,000 seat arena. In this format, you have two teams from out of town trying to fill a 70,000 to 100,000 seat stadium.

And you think local fans will buy the tickets? For $150 each? Few have that kind of money.

For a playoff to work, you have to have 4 teams and no more than two weeks. Keeps the bowls and let's have a four-team playoff.

Posted by TurboFan on January 5, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Biggest problem I see with Packer's scenario is that it still involves the polls. There was a sports editorial in today's Dayton Daily talking about how chess players get ranked by competing against players of their level. Winning over a lesser opponent gives no credit while costing severly if they lose (basically, SoS). Ohio St would be ranked lower for playing a what amounts to only 9 games (courtesy of their state legislature). For any playoff to be valid, the polls have to be fixed.

Posted by Homermoosevols on January 5, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WD40 you live in Dayton?

Posted by tnbuco on January 5, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Forget the bowls, they are only holding everything back! Tradition? The Viagra bowl isn't too far away and that's real traditional. There is already something called the Flomax award for the conference with the best bowl record so tradition went out a long time ago when colleges and bowls started selling their souls for cash.

With that in mind let's just go to a 16 team playoff. Division I can be paired back to 96 team split into 8 12-team conferences. Take the top two teams from each conference and you have a playoff. Will some teams get left out because of the conference they are in? Probably but the NFL does it every year and it hasn't seemed to kill the Suprebowl yet.

If you want to keep the bowls then you can save them for all of the teams that didn't make the playoffs. The Orange Bowl looked like it had alot of empty seats the other day so I don't think that tradition is being served by the BCS anyway.

Posted by TurboFan on January 5, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Moose, Dayton Oh, yes.

Posted by pdhuff on January 5, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You have got to get there before you can get too excited about the BCS.

Posted by stroker on January 5, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

marc_ash on January 5, 2008 at 4:33 p.m You posted "Nobody in college sports cares one bit about getting the best game accept the fans and the teams themselves." .# 1 true, so? # 2 "accept"
is that a typo or did you go to Alabama?

Posted by marc_ash on January 5, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mfoust, you said 3 straight weeks of travel for fans will produce empty seats. That isn't true. Tickets to the championship game here in Chattanooga were first offered to the residents of the city. There were some tickets released to the schools, but a majority of the tickets were sold to the host city.

If you have your so called "playoff games" in selected cities you can have them at the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc. The tickets will not be an issue.

Stroker, forgive me for my typo. Maybe I should comment on your incorrect punctuation...or maybe we went to Alabama together.

Posted by FatherVol on January 5, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And if participation is limited to just six conference champions you can bet that there will be litigation from the other conference represented in D1 (or whatever it is called now) football.

Posted by stroker on January 5, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We had 32 bowl games with 32 winners. 32 teams with happy players coaches and fans. There will be one more game for the NC and the winner's players coaches and fans will be elated. Many others will talk until next season how their team was better.No such comparison in any other sport.
In division 2 only ASU is a winner and nobody cares but them. Why reduce the Bowl division to such a depressing enviroment?

Posted by TurboFan on January 5, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're right stroker, let's cancel the Super Bowl cuz no one cares but fans in Boston and Dallas. In fact, let's cancel all the games so that all the discussions can be theoretical and never proven on the field and we will all be happy.

Posted by invisiblekid on January 5, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ditto to what MurrayVol said. I like Packer's idea and had talked with 99gator about something similar on here awhile back but it just isn't going to happen until some of the big boys at the networks start losing money on these games. Once the money starts drying up, then the tradition the Rose Bowl holds so dear be damned.

Posted by budd on January 5, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again we get another media type in favor of a playoff. So we can become just like the pros and have two or three mail-it-in games. As opposed to a regular season that matters. Where you have to win every game and play a competitive schedule (ask Auburn) to get to the big game. The only time the pros are decent is right now in the playoffs. Great exciting meaningful games. Just like every week in the college season. Please give this crap up and leave the only game with a meaningful regular season alone.

Posted by tnbuco on January 5, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please don't trot out the "Every week is a playoff" line ever again. LSU lost their playoff game twice and still lucked into the BCS Champ game!

Posted by byobbio on January 5, 2008 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to side with budd on this one. It just gets on my last nerve every time one of these ESPN types just won't let it go about the playoff. these are the same people that lobbied to get Woodson the heisman and their doing the same with the playoff. i noticed they've backed off a little this year, but that is what they are doing. I think any playoff system in D1 is ridiculous. You can't put 65 teams in. You can't get a decent playoff with 12 or 8 teams without getting somebody mad that they didn't get it. There is no equal conference system like the NFL so there is no fair playoff scenario. It's all pipe dreams by a bunch of people who don't know anything about college football. Quit comparing it to the NFL, baseball, basketball and NASCAR. You can't print enough tickets in August for the games and there's a big reason for that. Keep your playoffs in sports that aren't exciting enough to begin with.
OUT

Posted by mparker on January 6, 2008 at 2:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No way;

Use the basketball system of playoffs, with byes and seeding. I'd think the number of teams could be in the 20's to begin with. Lesser bowls can pick up teams that lose in round 1, or teams that don't make it at all.

The larger bowls could host the round of 8, and have the NC rotate beween the big bowls on a bid basis.

There are obviously details to work out.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Playoff positives (20 teams of more)
-a little less pressure on coaches in that they can have 3 or even 4 losses and be in the NC picture; this helps coaches from really tough conferences
-player development; coaches will get more players involved to build depth
-teams that don't have easy recurting pipelines can still have a chance for the NC, as they will have an entire season to get strong
-teams who improve over the course of a season will be able to compete for a NC (there where several years when the vols were maybe the best in the country at season end, but had a loss or 2 early to knock them out)
-mid-majors and 'cinderellas' get a chance to prove it on the field
-regular season counts much for seeding and/or bye

Posted by stroker on January 6, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tnbuco if every week is not a playoff what happened to UGA and SC and the Ducks etc?

Posted by budd on January 6, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

a little less pressure on coaches in that they can have 3 or even 4 losses and be in the NC picture; this helps coaches from really tough conferences

This is exactly what I have been saying. And the fan will be expected to pay to see games that nobody is really worried about winning cause we are already in the playoffs. And why should I worry about the p[ressure on somebody who make $2M a year. He's paid for pressure

And yes every week is a playoff because the other teams lost theirs too. They use it in a lot of NCAA playoffs, its called double elimination

Posted by VOLstuckINky on January 6, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nobcs.net

Stop the madnesss. The university presidents are evil.

The pac 10, small 10, and rose bowl commisioners are the antichrist.

Posted by tnbuco on January 6, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UGA got beat by an unranked, bowless oppenent (S. Carolina) same for USC (Stanford) and Oregon's season collapsed when thier QB went down. If you want to take it s step further why wasn't Kansas in the mix with only one loss?
The system is set up to give the chosen ones (big name schools from the BCS conferences) multiple oppurtunities to get into the Championship but unknowns (Kansas) are on a one and down scenario.

Kansas bested a team tha LSU beat handidly. UGA lost handidly to a team that LSU beat barely. How does UGA get to be above Kansas?

Fans in the NFL pay all the time to see the lesser games!

Come to think of it so do college basketball fans every November and December.

Posted by dtaylor0730 on January 6, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tickets really shouldn't be a problem at all. Just know the seating of each stadium, and do the print your own online ticket like so many other events are going to. Allot a site for each school, and let them sell x# of tickets. Other tickets can be sold by the same system to the general public.

Posted by DadwasaVol on January 7, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Amazing that there is no major college football national championship.

Posted by tnvol737 on January 7, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I see several problems with this system. 1. Injuries. Requiring multiple games after already playing 12 regular season games plus the SEC Championship (13 total)would kill any SEC team's chances. Unlike the other conferences, the SEC is brutal and extra games would create a problem. 2. Kids. These are college age kids who have to worry about school (academics) and going to visit with their families for the holidays. Additionally, this would extend the season past New Years (you cant play more than one game in one week). 3. Fans. This would require fans to travel to multiple venues through-out the country more than once. Think how expensive this could get! Also, think about the deminished crowds. 4. Bowls. What happens to all the other bowls. I personally like having lots of games to watch this time of year (was I the only one who watched Tulsa last night?).

I am not a fan of our current system, but I do not think a play-off is the answer.

Posted by adimatteo on January 7, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

why this obsession with a playoff, we have 119 teams, 12 games, we cant play double elimination tournament like baseball, we cant do a basketball tournament, etc. Enjoy the basketball, etc.
We have already made college football less exciting, heck, unless its a BCS bowl its nothing anymore, such ashame. Lets get it as sterile as the pros.
Any system will still have the same arguments, given a 12 game schedule, all the confreneces, which confrerences are good one year, etc.
keep the bowls, the parades, the excitement, a playoff will prove nothing, except to strip college football of a little more fun, and excitement...
I recall when we loved to watch the pagentry, get excited our team was at abowl, and yes, sometimes continue to argue who was better, now the obsessionwith a"#1" means everything...

Posted by byobbio on January 7, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with adimatteo. College football is as exciting as it gets and any playoff will ruin it. Let's face it, college basketball is great, but there are so many empty seats throughout the season that it must not matter until SEC play. That's ridiculous. Who cares if they are 13-1 or whatever. They haven't beaten anybody, but they are guaranteed to be in the tournaments, unless they loose out. Keep football the way it is. Packer, shut up and stick to high school football.
OUT

Posted by fishportion on January 7, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What if you made it truly like a final four and played both semifinal games on the same day back to back splitting the tix between the four teams..then the winners would play the next weekend and the two teams would split the tix(with the big corporate types)

Posted by sjt18 on January 7, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Admit CUSA and the MWC as the 7th and 8th BCS conferences.

Force all of the conferences to have 12 teams and a championship game... then play out the playoff above. That gives you 16 teams in tournament every year and takes away the excuse that now every game is a playoff game.

You'd have 96 of the 119 or so FBS schools involved as possible NC's... that's a better shot than they have now. Hawaii wasn't worthy but there's an off chance that someday another undefeated mid-major will be. The 23 other schools could either drop back to FCS or else expand one of the 12 team conferences to up to 14.

Posted by adimatteo on January 8, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and lets stop students from painting themselves, bringing in signs, and loud cheering.
Its college, its 119 teams, no one will ever agree with such limited games.
My point is that when schools and kids are disappointed that they are going to a New Years Day Bowl because its not the NC game, thats ashame, and thats what we have become.
Each sport is different, enjoy what it is,I refuse to accept that any system will stop the arguing, thus in the end we gain nothing but lose the bowls, excitement, etc.

Posted by feathersax on January 8, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Packer thinks he's a college football "purist"? I want to eliminate the BCS, go back to ten teams in the SEC. This playoff talk bores me to tears. When the so-called sports journalists begin to rant about it in print & the other media, I light my cigar & turn elsewhere. Kinda like when I read all these negative Vols vent their spleens. Hey...I feel better now. Back to work.