BCS to be replaced by system to be named 'College Football Playoff'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • MiP Iowa City, IA
    April 27, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    I agree with toosmartforyou. I imagine that rare will be the year when #5 doesn't put up a big stink about being left out. Especially if it's a second SEC team. I mean, what controversy could possibly come from the "selection committee" in this multi-million dollar busines$?....Having said that, I think it is still an upgrade from the single game format.More college football!

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    April 27, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    This will accelerate the slope of irrelevancy as football, like boxing, baseball, and basketball before them, slides toward irrelevancy. First the game goes off of free TV, then the game ticket prices become only available for corporate sponsors, then the sport makes blunder after blunder trying to chase more and more money.

    Rugby anyone?

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    April 25, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    College football playoff. Wow, that took some thought didn't it? Dumb. I think they named it this because they know it's not right yet, so they are saving the cool name for when they get it figured out. We'll know the name in like 2030 or something like that.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    April 25, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    @spokane ute

    Keep in mind that utah was never deemed worthy of a #1 vote regardless of their record or who they beat. Did you enjoy that parade for being #4?

  • Marked it Down Park City, UT
    April 25, 2013 4:27 p.m.


    "It's getting better, certainly better than pre-BCS when a team could beat a 6-5 team in a bowl and get voted as NC."

    The bcs was and will always be a joke. If a four-team playoff had existed in 1984, BYU wouldn't have been forced to play a 6-5 team in the championship game. The Cougars would have been given the opportunity to continue their 24-game winning streak by beating Nebraska and Washington to win the National Championship.

    btw, BYU has won as many bcs championships as the entire "conference of champions", COMBINED.

    April 25, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    "Spokane Ute

    Spokane, WA

    The BCS system is much more palatable when you are on the inside looking out. It's getting better, certainly better than pre-BCS when a team could beat a 6-5 team in a bowl and get voted as NC."

    Keep in mind Utah is basically just another Northwestern...only without the academics.

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    April 25, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    The BCS system is much more palatable when you are on the inside looking out. It's getting better, certainly better than pre-BCS when a team could beat a 6-5 team in a bowl and get voted as NC. An 8 team playoff would be ideal; baby steps!

  • Whatsnu Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    There's no reason why the playoffs and bowls can't co-exist.

    A 16-team playoff would be best, but an 8-team playoff would be sufficient to include all legitimate national championship contenders as long the selection committee is left to choose the best 8 teams, regardless of conference affiliation.

    If that means 3 SEC teams and no PAC 12 teams, so be it.

    If you want to include automatic berths for conference champions a la the Big Dance, then it should be a 16-team playoff, with EVERY conference champion included, plus the best of the rest.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    April 24, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    I prefer the bowls, always have.

  • Stang08 Cedar City, Utah
    April 24, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    @Stang Oh Eight

    You are so funny. You think I'm angry about an aggie immatating me. Well I'm not and I didn't mention SUU. Because our level already has a playoff system and it's great. I'm happy the soon to be former BCS is doing the playoff system. That's all I was saying. I was also expressing my opinion about a team that won't make the playoffs. Don't worry though Stang Oh Eight the aggies won't be alone.

    April 24, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    "KVN/Hoff want 0-4 against UTAH

    Ogden, UT

    Only teams from power conferences should be eligible for this playoff."

    A selection commmittee is being formed in order to ensure this is the case.

    BYU could run the table beating the four top five teams ranked behind them and they wouldn't get in because it would be taking a large chunk of change away from one of five conferences. Some would say it's religious bigotry and while that argument holds some water regarding conference affiliation, the reality is the system is not about crowning a champion. It is only about ensuring revenue distribution remains status quo and as long sa BYU isn't in one of those conferences they're in for an uncertain future.

  • KVN/Hoff want 0-4 against UTAH Ogden, UT
    April 24, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Only teams from power conferences should be eligible for this playoff.

    With the exception of Notre Dame of course.

    Long live the BCS conferences

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    April 24, 2013 12:28 a.m.

    My solution for a true National Championship Playoff is to expand the playoff to 16 teams with each conference sending their champion, then have a committee select the at large berths. This would eliminate most of the minor Bowls which, in my opinion, would be a good thing.

    Then seed the teams similarly to the way the NCAA Basketball playoff is seeded. Initially, four regions (West, South, Mid-West, East) with 4 teams each; 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3. That would create a HUGE interest from cities all over the country wanting to host the initial round of games.

    I would then like to see the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls incorporated into the playoffs as the quarter-finals sites. That would help keep these historic bowls as an important part of the National Playoffs. The semis would then pit each of these Champions against one another, with one finally breaking through to win it all in a National Championship game.

    The above playoff system would require the elimination of conference tournaments, but that would be a good thing; since it would make the regular season much more meaningful,

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    April 23, 2013 11:42 p.m.

    "(Why do the Ute fans still support the BCS?)" - toosmartforyou

    Not all of us do, I still think it's a load of baloney and I'm a long time Ute fan (33 years). Kyle Whittingham said something similar even after the Utes got in to a BCS league.

  • ekute Layton, UT
    April 23, 2013 8:26 p.m.

    "(Why do the Ute fans still support the BCS?)"

    Cause we're in and you're not.
    Cause We've been there and you haven't.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 23, 2013 7:39 p.m.

    Well, SoonerUte, there may have been 48 teams go to BCS bowls but how many different teams have ever played for the national championship? Last time I checked it was less than 10. And don't forget that one year your beloved Utes were worthy on the field but not in some poll or in some pre-programmed computer. How you can sing the praises of the BCS when they've really left you out in the cold as far as playing for all the marbles is beyond me. Do you think it was because Utah didn't have a "good enough team" to actually win it, as in Barry Switzer saying Alabama wouldn't even recruit the U of U players that year, or do you think perhaps they were afraid the Utes really would win the game? I suspect the latter, particularly after Utah pummeled the Tide. I actually cheered for the Utes that game!! The BCS was and is a joke. (Why do the Ute fans still support the BCS?)

  • Wildcat O-town, UT
    April 23, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    The FCS or D-II of yesterday started off with a four-team playoff and now is up to 20 teams. It is great to see a system that lets the players on the field determine it and not the boardroom or the marketing department.

    I agree with toosmartforyou, the foot is in the door. FINALLY!

  • DEW Cougars Sandy, UT
    April 23, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    No news and no change. So What!

  • Stang08 Cedar City, Utah
    April 23, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    Good to hear the BCS is doing the samething the FCS is doing. That's the best way to find the best team in the nation. It's a shame USU won't make the playoffs though LOLOLOLOLOL.

  • SoonerUte Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    Different name, still exclusive.

    Not that exclusive, really, considering 48 different teams have gotten in to BCS bowl games.

  • Gone fishin Murray, UT
    April 23, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    So much for Chris B's beloved BCS membership. Oh well, if was fun for two years.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 23, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    I agree, Cool Cat, but at least the camel has his nose in the tent now. Just wait until #5 thought they should have been #4 or #3 and you'll see the fur start to fly.

    Everyone knew the BCS wasn't the answer. And just about every year it looked pretty dumb in regards to at least one team in the country so this is an improvement over that. Just be patient until a select few oxes have again been gored and you'll see it expand.

    I agree that the 16-team deal is likely the best situation, as far as making it a true national championship and not forcing teams to play forever at the end of the year, but it will take some time to get past four teams. Eight teams seems more likely to me at least in the present climate.

    If they did go to 16 teams it might help settle the continuous changing of conferences that some schools are doing fairly often and settle things for some years. Then rivalries could be re-built and have some possibility of remaining in tact.

  • Duckhunted provo, UT
    April 23, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    I agree with both comments. No team outside the current BSC schools conferences have a chance, except Notre Dame!!! The independent with real National value!!

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    April 23, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    Everyone knows that this is a farce; the top 4 is better than nothing, but how hard would it be to do a 16-spot playoff?? Really? This is about keeping money and fame with the "big boys," as it always has been. With the rankings being as subjective as they are, the name is disingenuous. It's still a load of malarkey in my opinion.

  • Mike Johnson Stafford, VA
    April 23, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    They can't use the name "NCAA Division I Championship", because that name is already taken by the Football Championship Subdivision and sponsored by the NCAA itself, rather than a sub-group of a subdivision.