http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/tags/college Just another bbPress community en-US Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:28:04 +0000 http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/thanks-to-the-bcs-but-it%e2%80%99s-time-to-move-on#post-5 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:26:05 +0000 claudio tonelli 5@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ <p>The BCS was useful to get people accustomed to something different and yet not to different to the traditional bowl system, but it remains an insufficient hybrid when compared to a full playoff system, as proved by the fact that this year we will end up with at least two and perhaps three unbeaten teams, if Cincinnati wins the Sugar Bowl. Therefore it is time to evolve from the BCS, that I would rename Bridge Championship Series for its role as a bridge from the old bowl system to a modern playoff system.<br /> What I suggest is a composite scheme made up of a mayor 16 teams playoff and 4 regional playoffs with overall 64 teams playing in the post season – this year the teams in the postseason are 68. The goal is to retain all the best of what we have today, bowl tradition included with 6 games on or around New Year’s Day, and at the same time adding more great games, so more fun, and ending up with an undisputed champion. That is how it would work:</p> <p>1) Mayor 16 teams playoff tournament<br /> a. Who – Teams qualify either automatically by winning one of the conferences that reserve a berth or at large. Assuming that a conference to have the right of guaranteeing one spot in the playoffs needs to place at least two teams in the top 25 of the ranking in at least two of the last three years, seven places would be clinched by conference winner, Mountain West would join the six conferences that today assures a berth in the BCS. The remaining 9 places would be assigned through a ranking similar to the one employed today by the BCS but hopefully with also the AP ranking and consequently less weight to the computer ratings.<br /> b. When – Considering this year calendar for illustrative purpose, the schedule would be as follows: first round - between Thursday night Dec 9 and Saturday Dec 11 (teams losing in this round will qualify for one of the four regional playoff); quarterfinals – around Christmas (24-26 Dec); semifinals - New Year’s Day; championship – Thursday night 7 Jan (same date as this year BCS Championship)<br /> c. Where – The first round would be played at home of the seven conference champions and the best rated among the at large teams. Then, from the quarterfinals, the playoff would move to neutral location. Since the games scheduled from the quarterfinals are seven there would be room for three more stadium to join the four BCS location (i.e. the places could be Arlington Tx, Orlando Fl and Jacksonville Fl because of their important bowl tradition) eventually limiting the rotation to host the championship to the four seats now in the BCS.<br /> d. Why – The advantages of this scheme, in my view, are: 1) it guarantees that all the teams that could aspire to the national title are included; 2) the right to play at home in the first round and the chance to qualify in case of loss for the regional playoff should balance the risk for a top team to be eliminated in the first round, besides, by adding big names to the regional playoffs, it would guarantee more relevance to the regional playoffs that otherwise could be considered only minor events; 3) It would add two very entertaining dates: the first round on the second weekend of December (perhaps Army vs Navy could be moved to the third Saturday of the month), and quarterfinals around Christmas time, and still maintain the traditional New Year’s Day Bowl schedule and related TV marathon since together with the two semifinals, also the four finals of the regional playoffs would be scheduled on Jan 1 (eventually one of the four could be anticipated to Dec 31 and one postponed to Jan 2). This 6 games pack between Dec 31 and Jan 2 would allow for the traditional bowls to take place on Jan 1 (i.e. The Rose Bowl could be either a semifinal or the final of the western regional playoff when the Rose Bowl does not host a semifinal).</p> <p>2) 4 Regional 12+2 teams Playoffs (arranged dividing the nation in 4 areas and named North &amp; East, Southeast, Southwest and Mid &amp; West)<br /> a. Who - Teams winning the conferences that does not guarantee a berth for the Mayor Tournament will automatically qualify for the regional playoffs geographically closer to them. If the winner of one of these conferences qualifies for the mayor tournament, this year it would have been the case for Boise St., the right would passed to the runner up, unless he had a losing season. The eight losers of the first round of the Mayor tournament, two for each regional tournament will join from the second round. The remaining spots will be filled through at large designations, keeping the principle, as it is today, that a team with a losing season is not eligible for the postseason games.<br /> The North &amp; East tournament will mainly see teams from the Big East, Big Ten, the Southeast will be centered around the SEC and the ACC, the Southwest will mainly pick up teams from the Big 12 and the Mid &amp; West will have as major feeder the Pac 10 and the Big Ten. So there will be cases of a conference giving teams to different regional tournaments, the Big Ten will likely be the most significant example.<br /> b. When – The first round will be played the second weekend of December (same date of the Mayor tournament) and it will consist of 24 games as 12 teams for each regional tournament will play. The second round or quarterfinals – six winners of the first round and two losers of the Mayor first round - will take place the following Saturday (Dec 19 this year) with the chance of scheduling a few games Thursday and Friday. Thus it will consist of 16 games. The eight semifinals will take place the following week (it would have been Dec 24-26 this year) and the four finals, as anticipated around New Year’s Day (Dec 31 – Jan 2)<br /> c. Where – The total number of games of the regional tournaments is 52, adding the games of the mayor tournament with the exclusion of the first round we reach 59. The games that will be played in the postseason this year is 34, so there are more than enough games to cover all the seats of the existing bowls. Consequently there is the option either to find new seats for games or to adopt - like in the Mayor tournament - the rule to play the first round at home of the top ranked teams; since without the first round the number of games would go down to 35, it would remain still slightly above the one of this year.<br /> d. Why - The main reasons that supports the idea of adding 4 regional postseason tournaments to the Mayor Tournament are in my opinion the followings: 1) it allows to have a number of teams in the postseason very close to the one that we have today and 2) to have enough games to cover all the bowls events that we have today, each stadium that today host a bowl will still host a postseason games, same reasoning is valid for TV broadcasting. 3) New Year’s bowl tradition would be safe with 6 games on or around Jan 1 as said above. 4) It would introduce some new elements of interest in the postseason like some possible spicy games for example Penn St vs Pittsburgh as the final of the North &amp; East tournament, (another catchy intrastate game that we could have in the future is Ohio St vs Cincinnati) or opportunity for revenges, think for example of Oregon losing in the first round of the Mayor event and facing Oregon St in the final of the Mid &amp; West tournament or even chances for some minor team to make an historical upset of one big team in the second round.</p> <p>In conclusion the scheme that I have just illustrated would deliver, in my view, the best of both worlds: a true playoff system and bowl tradition and we need both, because if the only way to have an unquestionable number 1 is through a playoff tournament on the other hand paraphrasing what a “quite famous” English writer from Stradford upon Avon once wrote “that which we call the Rose by any other name won’t smell as sweet”!. </p>