05-16-2012, 12:49 PM
I believe 4 is a step in a process to 8 or 16.
4 as a number stinks given the current balance of power. A slot is definitely going to the SEC champ. 0 loss, 2 loss or 4 loss SEC champ, it won't matter they will have one of the 4 slots. This means the rest of D1 football is fighting over 3 slots. My guess is that it will be possible for the SEC to get two slots, but hopefully that won't happen too often.
The Pac-12, Big 12 and BigTen likely are willing to run with 4 because they can imagine a world where they each get one of the three other slots. However, the MWC, the Big East and the ACC probably also would imagine that their teams will slide into one of the three slots. So, after a few years lawsuits would begin to bubble up. Still 4 seems more likely to help the Pac-12 than the 2 of today, so 4 is probably better for the Pac-12 over the next decade. I guess I need to see how the system discourages runner-ups from participating in the final 4.
4 definitely kills the Rose Bowl of the 1950s-90s because the BigTen or Pac12 champ should be in that Final Four every year. Not too much of a problem for me. The 1999 Rose Bowl was not THAT much better than either BCS game, and I am confident Stanford in the Final Four would be more exciting than that 1999 Rose Bowl experience.
8 slots creates a different small problem because even I can concede that the second and third best SEC teams are likely better than the Big East, MWC, MEAC or WAC champ. So would the SEC always get 2 bids or even 3 bids, or would quality non-AQ conferences get automatic bids?
Down at 16 fairness problems seem to get solved. There would be room for 2 or 3 nonAQ schools and room for multiple teams from AQ conferences. Those in the mid teens likely will fight over the last few spots, but honestly none of the teams in that range could rightfully claim that the system is unfair as all of them would have at least a few bad games in their season.
So 16 feels great, but the problem with 16 is that the AQ conference championship games would likely become meaningless. And most conferences with money have learned to like their conference love fest.
The FCS is the guide for how the playoffs could be structured. The higher seed hosts the games, and the Championship game is at a neutral site.
No perfect solution seems to be in play, but saving the bowl games is not something I would trouble myself over. The Rose Bowl has a decent argument, but saving the Rose Bowl saves the likes of the San Diego County Credit Union Bowl too. The real problem is that all of the extra games are put on the backs, and heads, of student athletes that get so little out of the deal and risk so much. Most other sports are not so bad for the athlete's health, so the extra contests do not burden the organizers with such a profound ethical dilemma.
4 as a number stinks given the current balance of power. A slot is definitely going to the SEC champ. 0 loss, 2 loss or 4 loss SEC champ, it won't matter they will have one of the 4 slots. This means the rest of D1 football is fighting over 3 slots. My guess is that it will be possible for the SEC to get two slots, but hopefully that won't happen too often.
The Pac-12, Big 12 and BigTen likely are willing to run with 4 because they can imagine a world where they each get one of the three other slots. However, the MWC, the Big East and the ACC probably also would imagine that their teams will slide into one of the three slots. So, after a few years lawsuits would begin to bubble up. Still 4 seems more likely to help the Pac-12 than the 2 of today, so 4 is probably better for the Pac-12 over the next decade. I guess I need to see how the system discourages runner-ups from participating in the final 4.
4 definitely kills the Rose Bowl of the 1950s-90s because the BigTen or Pac12 champ should be in that Final Four every year. Not too much of a problem for me. The 1999 Rose Bowl was not THAT much better than either BCS game, and I am confident Stanford in the Final Four would be more exciting than that 1999 Rose Bowl experience.
8 slots creates a different small problem because even I can concede that the second and third best SEC teams are likely better than the Big East, MWC, MEAC or WAC champ. So would the SEC always get 2 bids or even 3 bids, or would quality non-AQ conferences get automatic bids?
Down at 16 fairness problems seem to get solved. There would be room for 2 or 3 nonAQ schools and room for multiple teams from AQ conferences. Those in the mid teens likely will fight over the last few spots, but honestly none of the teams in that range could rightfully claim that the system is unfair as all of them would have at least a few bad games in their season.
So 16 feels great, but the problem with 16 is that the AQ conference championship games would likely become meaningless. And most conferences with money have learned to like their conference love fest.
The FCS is the guide for how the playoffs could be structured. The higher seed hosts the games, and the Championship game is at a neutral site.
No perfect solution seems to be in play, but saving the bowl games is not something I would trouble myself over. The Rose Bowl has a decent argument, but saving the Rose Bowl saves the likes of the San Diego County Credit Union Bowl too. The real problem is that all of the extra games are put on the backs, and heads, of student athletes that get so little out of the deal and risk so much. Most other sports are not so bad for the athlete's health, so the extra contests do not burden the organizers with such a profound ethical dilemma.