Another BCS Idea

How about this? End the season a week early to get a final tab on the BCS standings at the point in the year. Try to make the dead week coorespond with Finals..i know some schools have different final test schedules, but this would be one way to make the system work.

The final standings were:
1.Ohio State
2.Florida
3.Michigan
4.LSU
5.USC
6.Louisville
7.Wisconsin
8.Boise State
9.Auburn
10.Oklahoma
11.Notre Dame
12.Arkansas
13.West Virginia
14.Wake Forest
15.Virginia Tech
16.Rutugers

Seed them accordingly from the final BCS standing and go from there.


Week #1
Game #1 Rutgers vs. Ohio State
Game #2 Virginia Tech vs. Florida
Game #3 Wake Forest vs. Michigan
Game #4 West Virginia vs. LSU
Game #5 Arkansas vs. USC
Game #6 Notre Dame vs. Louisville
Game #7 Oklahoma vs. Wisconsin
Game #8 Auburn vs. Boise State

Week #2
Game #1a Winner of #1 plays #8
Game #2a Winner of #2 plays #7
Game #3a Winner of #3 plays #6
Game #4a Wimmer of #4 plays #5

Week #3
Game #1b Winner of #1a plays winner of #3a
Game #2b Winner of #2a plays winner of #4a

Week #4 Championship
Winner of #1b vs. Winner of #2b


Sites could be neutral or neutral after week 1 on NFL team fields. TV coverage could be won by winning bids. This would get interesting and make the final 4 weeks of college football great!

Even better would be the teams that didnt make it, are able to discuss the possibility of playing each other either at a nuetral site or something like that.

I like it.

I have heard commentators talk about this and their hold-up was the fact that it would take too much out of kids "studying" time for finals. And they don't get as much money out of playoffs as they would get out of the umpteen bowl games. I like your idea though. Which rankings would you use to find the top 16 teams?

I like the idea, but I think it should just be higher seeded teams get home field advantage for the first 2 rounds. 4 weeks on neutral sites is a bit much to ask for, from the fans.

Sudying is not the thing that is the most unfair to these student athletes, it is the injury prospect. 4 more games means that much more chance to get hurt and lose out as a player. This is the difference between bball and football, the injury factor. This also cuts way down on the teams involved, which I agree there are way to many bowls as it is, but down to 16 teams seams like too much lost money for everyone, unless you like the same handful of teams getting all the money year after year, like some of us aren't behind as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HGPuck

Sudying is not the thing that is the most unfair to these student athletes, it is the injury prospect. 4 more games means that much more chance to get hurt and lose out as a player. This is the difference between bball and football, the injury factor. This also cuts way down on the teams involved, which I agree there are way to many bowls as it is, but down to 16 teams seams like too much lost money for everyone, unless you like the same handful of teams getting all the money year after year, like some of us aren't behind as it is.

---

I would predict that 60% of the bowl teams do not make money on their bowl games. I think Iowa broke even the year they played LSU, the expense of traveling the entire team, band and other expenses exceeds what the bowls pay out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timc243

I have heard commentators talk about this and their hold-up was the fact that it would take too much out of kids "studying" time for finals. And they don't get as much money out of playoffs as they would get out of the umpteen bowl games. I like your idea though. Which rankings would you use to find the top 16 teams?

---

I dont know..possibly a formula like the BCS that takes 2-3 polls into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cytech

I like the idea, but I think it should just be higher seeded teams get home field advantage for the first 2 rounds. 4 weeks on neutral sites is a bit much to ask for, from the fans.

---

Very true, and a point that i overlooked.