A better college football system.

[Dave Gray]

A friend and I were talking today about the FSU situation and he had a good idea.  I don't think it can happen, but you never know.  We didn't figure out exactly how it would work out, but the general gist was something like this.

Each of the large conferences would have a "sister conference", which would be the lesser conferences.  So, you'd have the Big 10 and then you'd pair it with the Mountain West or whatever.  You'd shift teams up and down within those conferences based on whatever criteria each year.  And then, you'd have two playoff systems: one for the big dogs, and then another for the lesser conferences.  We even talked about there being situations where you'd maybe still be in a lesser conference and get an at-large bid into the final 12, but it wouldn't work the other way.

It would be nice to replace the meaningless bowls with a sort of NIT-style tournament.

Right now, there are 11 conferences...so if you brought back the Big East or someone like that and split them 6 and 6, maybe give 6 auto bids to the winners and then 6-10 at large teams.

Then maybe every year, you relegate a team up and down, if certain criteria are met.

[Spider-Dan]

What would be the benefit to an SEC/B1G/ACC/Big-12 program in agreeing to this sort of relegation system?

[Dave Gray]

"I don't think it can happen"

I think it would create a better overall product, but some schools definitely have a lot to risk.

[Phishfan]

There are not enough good teams in those conferences that warrant promotion. It's not a viable option really.

[Sunstroke]

It's an interesting concept, and agree that it is unlikely to ever happen.

[AQNOR]

Not viable.   What they need to do is put the rankings for the playoffs in the hands of more people.   Perhaps the AP Writers Poll, the ESPN Coaches Poll, and the old BCS Computer Polls and come out with an average of the two.   

A 13 man playoff committee is too prone to corruption.

[Downunder Dolphan]

Or you could just get rid of this whole made up playoff system, and have it like it was before.

Yeah, it's still bullshit, but there's no pretending that there's any real legitimacy to it either.

Ps. I know there's no chance of this happening. There is way too much $$$ involved for any of them to give this up.

[Dave Gray]

Or you could just get rid of this whole made up playoff system, and have it like it was before.

Yeah, it's still bullshit, but there's no pretending that there's any real legitimacy to it either.

Ps. I know there's no chance of this happening. There is way too much $$$ involved for any of them to give this up.

I much prefer a 4 team playoff to a 2 team playoff, which is what it used to be during the BCS.  And I prefer a 12 team to a 4 team.  I think they're moving in the right direction.  I just think it's hard to make it work, while still adhering to the old things in place.

[AQNOR]

I much prefer a 4 team playoff to a 2 team playoff, which is what it used to be during the BCS.  And I prefer a 12 team to a 4 team.  I think they're moving in the right direction.  I just think it's hard to make it work, while still adhering to the old things in place.

IMO, eight teams would be better than twelve.   No one gets a first round bye, you can have the Power 3 conference champs (The Pac 12 is dead after this year and I don't see the ACC lasting much longer), and five at large teams.   But as I said in an earlier post, get rid of the committee and let the AP Poll, ESPN Poll, and BCS computers all decide who takes the top eight spots.   You can use the NY6 Bowls as sites for the quarterfinals and semifinals and the championship game gets bid on, just like it does now.   Anyone not making the playoffs can play in all those other bowls they have.