The case for a playoff

So, when Mizzou lost last night, I was ecstatic! I was sad for my friends, but I knew that, paired with a loss by Tennessee pretty much sealed a Rose Bowl berth for Illinois, meaning that I SHOULD be headed to Pasadena for my first trip to the southwest. I'm super excited about the possibility of that.

However, when West Virginia lost, the scenario that nobody in the BCS camp wanted to stare at came about. One loss OSU gets into the championship, obviously, but what one or two loss team goes? I mean, this runs off of the assumption that UNDEFEATED Hawaii can't go (not for a few more years at least...as there is serious bias against small conferences, and some of it rightfully so...anyway).

There are many teams that have strong resumes...so let's look at all of the #2 teams in the country and their resumes

2a. - LSU (11-2)

• SEC conference champs
• only losses came in overtime (Kentucky, Arkansas)
• decisive wins: Florida, Virginia Tech

2b. - Oklahoma (11-2)

• Big 12 conference champs
• beat Missouri twice
• lost to Texas Tech late in season and Colorado
• decisive wins: over #1 Missouri

2c. - Virginia Tech (11-2)

• ACC conference champs
• lost 14-10 to Boston College earlier in season and beat them in ACC championship game
• destroyed by LSU (48-7)
• decisive wins: #16 Virginia, #11 Boston College

2d. - USC (10-2)

• Pac-10 conference champs
• one of two losses came to Stanford, who lost to Notre Dame (nuff said)
• decisive wins: #6 Arizona State

2e. - Georgia (10-2)

• DID NOT win conference championship
• 4-0 vs. ranked team
• last loss came in early October to SEC championship game loser Tennessee
• decisive wins: #11 Florida

2f. - West Virginia (10-2)

• Big East conference champs
• 3-1 versus ranked opponenets
• average 38.9 ppg (44.5 in wins)
• decisive losses: unranked Pitt

2g. - Arizona State (10-2)

• Only losses to USC and Oregon (who would still be good without losing Dennis Dixon)
• 1-2 versus ranked teams
• decisive losses: #11 USC
  

2h. - Missouri (10-2)

• Beat #1 Kansas
• Only losses came to Oklahoma
• won Big 12 North division
• decisive losses: Big 12 title game
  

2i. - Kansas (11-1)

• Played very weak schedule
• 1-1 versus ranked teams (0-1 against teams in last poll)
• did not win conference division

3. - Hawaii (12-0)

• Play in the WAC...sorry guys, no respect
• Attempted to schedule challenging non-conference games and were denied
• ONLY Bowl Subdivision team that is undefeated

So, what does that leave us with.

11 teams...all of whom have some sort of a claim at playing for a title. So, is it really the best to leave all of this up to computers and biased voters that don't have weeks to analyze and choose the BEST two teams out of this crop. So, how about a playoff already?

What does this look like though?

I propose a system similar to the college basketball playoff. When a team wins it's conference, it gains a spot in the tournament. That means 11 spots would be automatic bids. After this, giving 5 at large bids to the next highest ranked BCS teams would give us a tournament like this (seeding approximate on record and contingent upon final AP poll, not BCS; automatic bids in bold)

1. Ohio State (11-1)
2. LSU (11-2)
3. Oklahoma (11-2)
4. Georgia (10-2)
5. Virginia Tech (11-2)
6. USC (10-2)
7. Missouri (10-2)
8. Kansas (11-1)
9. Florida (9-3)
10. Arizona State (10-2)
11. Hawaii (12-0)
12. West Virginia (10-2)
13. BYU (10-2)
14. Central Florida (10-3)
15. Troy (8-4)
16. Central Michigan (8-5)

In this year, the major conferences are looking at 2 losses consistently still allowing a chance at the title (all but Florida are 2 loss teams). The only glaring ugly in this is Central Michigan's 5 losses and conference title. Perhaps in a situation when there isn't a conference champ with <>

Not ALL emphasis is on winning your conference (although that gets you in)

Mid-majors are given a chance to play for a title

Less griping about who plays and more about where they're seeded

Disadvantages of this system include

• Possibility for upsets of teams expected to win (wait, that's a disadvantage?)
• logistics of locations
• 4 extra games for a team that plays in a conference with a championship means 17 games if they play in the National Title Game
• Non-tournament games might mean less
  

So, what about other years...This should work for many seasons if it is to work...let's look at '05, the year when Texas and USC was the obvious title game. (seeding is approximate, the field is what is important)

1. USC (12-0)
2. Texas (13-0)
3. Penn State (11-1)
4. Ohio State (10-2)
5. Oregon (10-2)
6. Notre Dame (9-3)
7. Georgia (10-2)
8. Miami (9-3)
9. Virginia Tech (11-2)
10. West Virginia (11-1)
11. LSU (11-2)
12. Texas Christian (11-1)
13. Toledo (9-3)
14. Nevada (9-3)
15. Tulsa (9-4)
16. Arkansas State (6-6)

again applying the >3 loss substitution, Tulsa and Arkansas State will be replaced by Auburn and Alabama.

By having a 16 team field, you are allowing a large # of the top 10 teams to play for a title and every conference champ (with a reasonable record) has a chance at ultimate victory. And, if the major bowls still want major teams, why can't the elite eight round be the four BCS bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange)? I'm sure there are holes. I'd love to hear critiques, thoughts, etc on this playoff system.

PS: NCAA, this is my idea (as far as I know)...gimme cred :)