College Football Playoff? I don't want it, never have, probably never will

[majent]

The current system encourages teams to bring it every single down, of every single series, of every single game.

If we have a 4 team playoff, there will be years where the #5, 6, 7 teams will have a complaint. Boom -- controversy.

If we have an 8 team playoff, there will be years where the #9, 10, 11 teams will have a complaint. Boom -- controversy.

A 16 team playoff will render the rivalry games in November pretty much meaningless, and turn our beloved college football into the NFL where teams will rest players towards the end of the regular season and play in meaningless games, and I DON'T WANT THAT!!!

College Football is a very unique animal. A physical sport that is not symmetrical in terms of conferences, number of teams, and how it can nicely shaped into a 4, 8, 16, 32 team playoff, etc. It doesn't work that way, which is one of the reasons that the College Football REGULAR SEASON IS THE GREATEST ONE IN ALL OF SPORTS. No other major team sport's regular season can hold a candle to college football, and that's because EVERY GAME ON EVERY SATURDAY COUNTS. Get blown out and it looks worse than playing a close game. Just ask Georgia from 2007 about that.

THE CURRENT SYSTEM PROMOTES THE MOST EXCITING AND WELL-PLAYED REGULAR SEASON POSSIBLE, AND I DON'T WANT IT ANY OTHER WAY. THE CURRENT SYSTEM PROMOTES PLAYING TO THE FINAL WHISTLE, WIN OR LOSE.

Georgia and USC 2007? You guys did not deserve to go over LSU to the BCS. Period. Georgia, you lost at home to S. Carolina who did not even make a bowl game, then got destroyed at Tennessee, 35-14, and the game was 28-0 at halftime, a blowout. USC, you lost at home to Stanford, a 42 pt dog who was playing with their back-up QB. If you had won that game, you would have gone.

W. Virginia, you blew your opportunity by losing to Pitt at home, 13-9. A Pitt team that finished 5-7 and did not go to a bowl.

LSU lost at Kentucky (a bowl team) in 3OT on the road. LSU also lost in 3OT at home to Arkansas who had the best player in the country (RB Darren McFadden). Yes Florida fans, McFadden is and was better than Tim Tebow.

LSU got rewarded for playing to the final whistle. Georgia and USC went on long winning streaks to end the 2007 season because they played the WEAKEST part of their schedules to finish the season. Sorry guys, you can't fool me.

Ohio State and LSU both deserved to go to the 2007 BCS Title Game, and that's exactly how the polls turned out. The voters, both coaches and media guys, got it right. Once in a while, like '90, '97, and '03, we have split polls, and I am okay with that.

Take it from a super-fan who has watched 300+ straight Fall Saturdays over the last 22 yrs (since 1986). I live for this sport.

A PLAYOFF WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

I don't want that, and neither should you...........

 

[TheGarfather]

If we have an 8 team playoff, there will be years where the #9, 10, 11 teams will have a complaint. Boom -- controversy.

Wrong. Find one year when #9 could make a case for being the best team in the country.Go ahead, I'll wait. Realistically, #s 8 and 7 don't belong either, and 6 or 5 seldom do but it happens, so you have to have more than just four. Instead of 8 I could settle for 6 with byes for 1 and 2. I can't live with voting determining things, that is the one solution I'm really not comfortable with in any way, shape or form. I don't think that a small (3 rounds or less) playoff diminishes the importance of the regular season. That is still going to be undefeated and once beaten teams with a couple elite 2-loss teams thrown in. If you think coaches and players will "take it easy" or "take a game off" I think you are sadly mistaken. The biggest problem with the current format is that we always end up trying to compare losses which is futile and intellectually silly. I would love to see what teams like Boise or Utah could do in such situations and with the current system all but a couple big schools who start the year high in the polls are shut out completely.

Even though I disagree with your assessment, I am very glad that you formulated the argument the way you did instead of including the usual retread BS about the kids playing too much and missing a lot of school. That stuff makes me want to throw things across the room.

Gar's Solution: play bowl season as normal. Bowls will be even more important as teams will be jockeying for seeding position and inclusion into the field!!! All New Year's Day games or after would matter instead of having one important bowl game! Any team still undefeated is included and then the rest are selected to make a field of 8, seed accordingly, play it out in three weeks such that the championship game is the Saturday (at a pre-determined neutral location) in the off-week before the Super Bowl. Nothing could be finer.

 

[JPicks]

You're right. Nothing I hate more than the NCAA basketball tournament.

 

[majent]

If we have an 8 team playoff, there will be years where the #9, 10, 11 teams will have a complaint. Boom -- controversy.

Wrong. Find one year when #9 could make a case for being the best team in the country.Go ahead, I'll wait. Realistically, #s 8 and 7 don't belong either, and 6 or 5 seldom do but it happens, so you have to have more than just four. Instead of 8 I could settle for 6 with byes for 1 and 2. I can't live with voting determining things, that is the one solution I'm really not comfortable with in any way, shape or form. I don't think that a small (3 rounds or less) playoff diminishes the importance of the regular season. That is still going to be undefeated and once beaten teams with a couple elite 2-loss teams thrown in. If you think coaches and players will "take it easy" or "take a game off" I think you are sadly mistaken. The biggest problem with the current format is that we always end up trying to compare losses which is futile and intellectually silly. I would love to see what teams like Boise or Utah could do in such situations and with the current system all but a couple big schools who start the year high in the polls are shut out completely.

Even though I disagree with your assessment, I am very glad that you formulated the argument the way you did instead of including the usual retread BS about the kids playing too much and missing a lot of school. That stuff makes me want to throw things across the room.

Gar's Solution: play bowl season as normal. Bowls will be even more important as teams will be jockeying for seeding position and inclusion into the field!!! All New Year's Day games or after would matter instead of having one important bowl game! Any team still undefeated is included and then the rest are selected to make a field of 8, seed accordingly, play it out in three weeks such that the championship game is the Saturday (at a pre-determined neutral location) in the off-week before the Super Bowl. Nothing could be finer.

Gar, although I respect your opinion and challenge, I assure you that if I had the time or inclination, I could find NUMEROUS years where the #9 team was as worthy as the #6,7,8 teams to make it to a playoff of some sort. Much more difficult than you imagine to separate these teams.

 

[majent]

You're right. Nothing I hate more than the NCAA basketball tournament.

Apples and oranges, my friend. Unlike the NCAA basketball season, the NCAA football regular season gets HUGE TV ratings week in and week out. A playoff would hurt the regular season significantly.

Vast majority of sports fans watch very few NCAA Basketball regular season games. Also, the nature of basketball lends itself to quick turnarounds, hence teams that advance play 2 games each weekend from round 1 thru championship Monday.

Good Luck instituting that in a physical sport like college football.

The NFL regular season gets great ratings because it is America's passion. Also, every game is on a Sunday with one game on Monday night so the scheduling is nice for people. Only 32 teams in there as well.

NBA, NCAA Basketball, MLB, NHL, none of these regular seasons can come close to touching college football and this is mainly because EVERY GAME COUNTS.

Tue, Wed, Thur, Fri night games get big ratings. Saturday college football ratings are HUGE.

 

[RetroVK]

Let me tell you why I think a playoff is the best option and also why I will hate the playoff if and when it comes about.

What I hate most as a sports fan ( not a bettor but a fan ) is that before the season ever starts the following teams .... no matter how good they are , are not going to win a national championship. If any of these teams, are the best team in the country, it simply won't matter. You could make an argument ( maybe ) that the mwc of wac teams have a chance but its lottery type odds.

here is the list

1. western kentucky
2. fiu
3.fau
4. troy
5. ull
6. ulm
7. mtsu
8. arkansas st
9. north texas
10. central mich
11. akron
12. western mich
13. ohio
14. ballst
15. bowling green
16. eastern mich'
17. miami ohio
18. northern illinois
19. toledo
20. buffalo
21. temple
22. kent st
23. army
24. navy
25. fresno st
26. boise st
27. utah state
28. hawaii
29. san jose st
30. nevada
31. nmsu
32. la tech
33. idaho
34. s miss
35 utep
36. uab
37 smu
38 ecu
39 tulsa
40 houston
41. tulane
42. rice
43. ucf
44 marshall
45. memphis
46. utah ( could they have had a better season ? )
47. byu
48. tcu
49. unlv
50. unm
51. wyoming
52. air force
53. sdsu
54. colorado st


Thats 54 out of 120 teams that are eliminated from winning a national title before the first snap of the season.

That is the antithesis of sports.

Therefore , any playoff system , if it is to be fair, must allow the champion of each conference a spot.

Otherwise, it isn't much more than figure skating. A subjective decision made by people off the field instead of a competition decided on the field ( sports definition ? ).

You say every game is meaningful in cfb ... ... but i just listed 54 schedules where their games ( atleast in respect to themselves , not necessarily their opponent ) are meaningless in regards to them winning a title.


So while i think the current system inherently sucks, since almost half the teams are eliminated in the preseason, i still would be upset by most peoples playoff systems. Because those systems wouldn't allow for the sun belt champion or mac champion to be involved in a playoff but would allow for the third place team in the SEC to make the playoffs.

I mean why play the games at all ??? lets jsut all decide that alabama is better than ULM and get on with life ....oh wait .... ulm beat them ... bad example .....

 

[majent]

I can poke holes in ANY playoff format that is brought forth. One of the most popular playoff formats I have seen is Scott Wetzel's (The Sporting News). He includes the Sun Belt, MAC, and WAC champions and I have a HUGE problem with that. No way the Sun Belt, MAC or WAC champion is more deserving than the 2nd or 3rd place team in some of the major conferences in ANY YEAR.

Wetzel does not give enough at-large bids so many deserving teams from top conferences get left out.

Any playoff format I see, I can poke major holes in it -- just as many if not more than the BCS has. *Most* yrs, the most deserving 2 teams are in the national title game, and I am not convinced that the playoffs will not hurt the regular season, and as a guy who wants what is best for college football, I think what we have is the best it can really get.

It's just like the US judicial system. It's not perfect, but it's probably the best in the world from what I've seen.

 

[JPicks]

Gar, although I respect your opinion and challenge, I assure you that if I had the time or inclination, I could find NUMEROUS years where the #9 team was as worthy as the #6,7,8 teams to make it to a playoff of some sort. Much more difficult than you imagine to separate these teams.

I will apologize for my last sarcastic post and say that it's easy to dismiss the "#9 team" in this scenario. In today's landscape we find it somewhat easy to dismiss an undefeated SEC team from the championship game (Auburn '04). I can't imagine it'll be hard to dismiss a 2 loss Big East team from the convo as a #9 seed. The fact that non BCS teams are automatically dismessed from the argument is what bothers me most.

Could Utah have been the best team in 2004? What about BSU in 2006? Easy to dismiss as a BCS school, but they both won their BCS bowl games and who doesn't want to see them make a run other than the money grubbing BCS teams. Duke, Baylor and many other shitty football programs are making crazy cash just by being in BCS conferences. I'd imagine the revenues of watching one of the "mid-majors" battle it out with the big boys should pay for the playoff itself.

 

[majent]

Great points Kyle, but Gar just said that the #9 team or below is never deserving. I contend that *most* years the #9 team is just as deserving as the #5 or #6 team.

Good luck splitting those hairs.

Now you're saying that 54 out of 119 D-1A teams (don't forget Western Kentucky who will soon be #120 D-1A team) don't even get a chance.

If we give all 119 teams a chance, might as well begin the playoff on Aug 30th and get rid of the regular season, coz it will take 7 games just to play it down from 119 to 1

 

[majent]

I will apologize for my last sarcastic post and say that it's easy to dismiss the "#9 team" in this scenario. In today's landscape we find it somewhat easy to dismiss an undefeated SEC team from the championship game (Auburn '04). I can't imagine it'll be hard to dismiss a 2 loss Big East team from the convo as a #9 seed. The fact that non BCS teams are automatically dismessed from the argument is what bothers me most.

Could Utah have been the best team in 2004? What about BSU in 2006? Easy to dismiss as a BCS school, but they both won their BCS bowl games and who doesn't want to see them make a run other than the money grubbing BCS teams. Duke, Baylor and many other shitty football programs are making crazy cash just by being in BCS conferences. I'd imagine the revenues of watching one of the "mid-majors" battle it out with the big boys should pay for the playoff itself.

The difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" is much bigger in college football than any other major team sport. 2007 notwithstanding, you will find fewer major "upsets" in college football than any other sport, so the rankings are more valid than any ranking system in any other major team sport.

 

[JPicks]

Apples and oranges, my friend. Unlike the NCAA basketball season, the NCAA football regular season gets HUGE TV ratings week in and week out. A playoff would hurt the regular season significantly.

Vast majority of sports fans watch very few NCAA Basketball regular season games. Also, the nature of basketball lends itself to quick turnarounds, hence teams that advance play 2 games each weekend from round 1 thru championship Monday.

Good Luck instituting that in a physical sport like college football.

The NFL regular season gets great ratings because it is America's passion. Also, every game is on a Sunday with one game on Monday night so the scheduling is nice for people. Only 32 teams in there as well.

NBA, NCAA Basketball, MLB, NHL, none of these regular seasons can come close to touching college football and this is mainly because EVERY GAME COUNTS.

Tue, Wed, Thur, Fri night games get big ratings. Saturday college football ratings are HUGE.

Bullshit my friend. And I mean that in a nice way not a covers way. The NFL regular season gets great ratings because it's football. Football is America's passion, not the NFL. The Arena league is the XFL so I'm not about to count it. The regular season of CFB doesn't excite the public because every game counts. It excites the public because there are only 12 games.

Do you honestly think that if Georgia played 12 games and they lost their 4th game of the year people would become disinterested if there was a playoff?

A playoff system could only help the NCAA. No doubt about it in my mind.

 

[RetroVK]

I can poke holes in ANY playoff format that is brought forth. One of the most popular playoff formats I have seen is Scott Wetzel's (The Sporting News). He includes the Sun Belt, MAC, and WAC champions and I have a HUGE problem with that. No way the Sun Belt, MAC or WAC champion is more deserving than the 2nd or 3rd place team in some of the major conferences in ANY YEAR.

Wetzel does not give enough at-large bids so many deserving teams from top conferences get left out.

Any playoff format I see, I can poke major holes in it -- just as many if not more than the BCS has. *Most* yrs, the most deserving 2 teams are in the national title game, and I am not convinced that the playoffs will not hurt the regular season, and as a guy who wants what is best for college football, I think what we have is the best it can really get.

It's just like the US judicial system. It's not perfect, but it's probably the best in the world from what I've seen.

You have no problem with lsu jumping georgia in the polls despite losing their last regular season game. why ? most likely because you think it would be ridiculous for georgia to go to the title game when lsu won the SEC conference. But you have no problem not allowing a was , mac , conf usa , or sunbelt into a playoff. doesnt make sense.

I am confused. To be the champion shouldnt you be the best team on the field. Any team in the SEC can win their conference and get a bid to the playoffs. They have a chance. Win your games. What possible argument could the third place team in the sec have over the wac champion ? The "we play in a better conference" argument is meaningless on two fronts. 1. To win the national title you should have to win your conference. 2. Who decides which conferences are worthy.

Name me a team under a conference champions playoff that would be eliminated from national title contention before a snap of the ball ?

Since you have the chargers avatar i will use the chargers as an example. How would you like it if the chargers won every single game but people decided that the patriots are better so they go to the playoffs and san diego doesnt ? the patriots are a better team after all. Or expounding on the idea .... the giants beat the patriots in the super bowl but who cares ?? we all know the patriots are the better team so lets annoint them the championship.

The whole idea of sports is for it to be decided on the field.

Without that mentality in sports we dont have usa hockey over the russians in 1980 , or the giants over the pats last year , or ncstate in the ncaa , or villanova over georgetown , or jack nicklaus in 1986 , or joe namath and the jets over miami , or the cardinals winning the world series a couple of years ago or buster douglas beating mike tyson. The greatest moments in sports are when the little guy rises up and becomes a champion. There can be no "hickory hoosiers" moment without giving every team the opportunity to win the title.

It's the anti-thesis of sport.

 

[TheGarfather]

Gar, although I respect your opinion and challenge, I assure you that if I had the time or inclination, I could find NUMEROUS years where the #9 team was as worthy as the #6,7,8 teams to make it to a playoff of some sort. Much more difficult than you imagine to separate these teams.

That is not what I mean. You are talking about differentiating between 6 thru 9, and the fact that the "last team out" always says they should be in. I am not interested in whether 9 thinks they are as good as 8, all that matters to me is if 9 can say they are as good as 1. It doesn't matter to me if there is a big gap or none at all between the final teams in. All I care about are the teams that can viably make an argument that they are the best. #9 never has been able to and never will. More often than not its really only 3, 4, or 5 teams that can lay claim to being the best, but unfortunately if its more than 4 you have take enough to fill out a bracket even if the last couple chosen probably don't belong.

And you said something later in this thread about the BCS usually getting the right two into the game and I just totally disagree with that. If the two best play each other its more of a coincidence than anything. Since when does "deserving" have anything to do with it? Aren't we looking for the best? Would you suppose to tell the rest of us who is the most deserving? Now that is splitting hairs...

 

[majent]

A playoff system could only help the NCAA. No doubt about it in my mind.

I disagree, and the powers-that-be do as well. That's why there is no playoff -- they know it would be a detriment to the regular season and the huge bowl sponsors are opposed to it as well. If the playoffs would improve the overall product and increase fan interest, we would have one. There are analysts and forecasters who work for the NCAA and I am quite sure they agree with my assessment that the regular season product would suffer with a playoff.
Controversy would still remain over who got in and who didn't, especially if it was only 4, 8, or 16 teams (or anything in between), and the more teams we have in this playoff, the more the regular season suffers.

Weeks 16 and 17 of the NFL regular season are essentially meaningless. Sometimes week 15 is as well for the top teams.

Imagine, if in 2006, USC did not think they had to beat their crosstown rival UCLA in order to make the title game.........what an exciting, incredible upset by UCLA. The tension in that game was palpable.

Imagine, if in 2007, West Virginia did not think they had to beat their rival Pittsburgh in the "backyard brawl" to make the title game..........what an exciting, incredible upset by Pittsburgh. The tension in that game was palpable.

If I did not have to continue my reading my Phil Steele magazine, I would list example after example of these types of regular season games that would essentially be meaningless with a playoff of any kind.

I don't care if all 5.5 billion people on the earth wanted a playoff, I still would not agree with it. I have no way to prove that I have never missed a regular season Saturday since 1986, you'll just have to take my word for it. I love this game of college football more than life itself, and only want the best for it.

A playoff is not the answer.

 

[majent]

Guys, again, think outside the box. Go up and over the box. You cannot compare college football with ANY other sport because no other sport (other than the NFL) can play as few games as college football because of the physicality of the game. It is obvious why the top NFL teams rest their guys for the last 2 games of the season. They only play 16 games, but they rest guys for the final 2. That's 12.5% of the season where the top players on the top teams sit! In the NBA they only rest the top players the final 2 games or so, that's 2 out of 82. Only 1.something percent of the time in the NBA. Same goes for NCAA basketball, the NHL, MLB.

Again, if we have a playoff of 4, 6, or 8 teams, then trust me that #'s 9, 10, 11, etc, will be oh so close in comparison to the other teams and they will have gotten screwed,

CONTROVERSY AGAIN!

A 16 team or larger playoff and the regular season will be severely and adversely affected.

You can't see this???

Honestly, you can't see this???

 

[RetroVK]

Why not just seed the conference champs ?

 

[majent]

Why not just seed the conference champs ?

Too easy Kyle. So easy that it won't work.

In 2006, Michigan went into that highly-anticipated Ohio State game as the #2 team vs. the #1. They lost the game, and hence finished 2nd in the BIG-10.

I know you don't believe that they did not deserve a playoff seed that season.

 

[RetroVK]

Too easy Kyle. So easy that it won't work.

In 2006, Michigan went into that highly-anticipated Ohio State game as the #2 team vs. the #1. They lost the game, and hence finished 2nd in the BIG-10.

I know you don't believe that they did not deserve a playoff seed that season.

They don't. Beat ohio state and win your conference. They have their opportunity. Beat ohio state and go to the playoffs. No different than any other conference. If you cant win your own conference why should you have a beef that you should be in a playoff for the title? You werent even the champion of your own conference.

Why should second place in the mwc be snubbed ? or the MAC ? the only reason would be preconceived notions about who is better.

I think Florida and Georgia are the two best teams in the country so they should play for the title. Who cares what happens on the field. they are the best ... so lets just play the season and put the two best teams in there. its circular logic.

 

[majent]

They don't. Beat ohio state and win your conference. They have their opportunity. Beat ohio state and go to the playoffs. No different than any other conference. If you cant win your own conference why should you have a beef that you should be in a playoff for the title? You werent even the champion of your own conference.

Why should second place in the mwc be snubbed ? or the MAC ? the only reason would be preconceived notions about who is better.

I think Florida and Georgia are the two best teams in the country so they should play for the title. Who cares what happens on the field. they are the best ... so lets just play the season and put the two best teams in there. its circular logic.

It won't work. Some years some conferences are stronger than others. In 2006, on November 18th, Michigan and Ohio State were each 11-0. They went into the final game as #2 visiting #1, respectively.

You're saying it's fair that Troy, or C. Michigan, gets to go to a playoff after competing the entire season in the Sun Belt or MAC, but Michigan, who is unfortunate to have the #1 team in the country reside in their own conference, and have to play them on the road, does not deserve a trip to the playoff because they did not win their conference?

Not fair to the great teams out there who happen to have another equally great team in their own conference.

With your playoff system idea, the best conference from top-to-bottom, year after year, (the SEC) would only place 1 team in the playoffs. With the fact that some conferences (namely the PAC-10, BIG-10, BIG EAST, MWC, WAC, and Sun Belt) do not play conference title games, this is completely unfair. The SEC, BIG-12, Conf USA, and ACC, are 4 of the toughest conferences to win because you have to win your division, then play the other division's winner.

This idea you have to just seed the conference winners would be unfair and would not pit the top teams against each other. The vast majority of years, the 2nd place teams in the power BCS conferences are better than the MAC and Sun Belt champions. Hell, even the WAC champion can't play with them most yrs. For ever Boise State over Oklahoma miracle, there are 25 Georgia crushing Hawaii examples.

 

[RetroVK]

It won't work. Some years some conferences are stronger than others. In 2006, on November 18th, Michigan and Ohio State were each 11-0. They went into the final game as #2 visiting #1, respectively.

You're saying it's fair that Troy, or C. Michigan, gets to go to a playoff after competing the entire season in the Sun Belt or MAC, but Michigan, who is unfortunate to have the #1 team in the country reside in their own conference, and have to play them on the road, does not deserve a trip to the playoff because they did not win their conference?

Not fair to the great teams out there who happen to have another equally great team in their own conference.

With your playoff system idea, the best conference from top-to-bottom, year after year, (the SEC) would only place 1 team in the playoffs. With the fact that some conferences (namely the PAC-10, BIG-10, BIG EAST, MWC, WAC, and Sun Belt) do not play conference title games, this is completely unfair. The SEC, BIG-12, Conf USA, and ACC, are 4 of the toughest conferences to win because you have to win your division, then play the other division's winner.

This idea you have to just seed the conference winners would be unfair and would not pit the top teams against each other. The vast majority of years, the 2nd place teams in the power BCS conferences are better than the MAC and Sun Belt champions. Hell, even the WAC champion can't play with them most yrs. For ever Boise State over Oklahoma miracle, there are 25 Georgia crushing Hawaii examples.

I fail to understand why it is unfair.

To be the champion you should have to win your games.

Because i think the SEC is the best conference ( and i do ) or because you do , doesn't make it true. You cannot arbitrarily say that the pac-10 is better than the mwc this year.

The point i am making is about opportunity. Using your michigan/ohiostate example. You are more upset about a michigan being a really good team and losing to ohio state and therefore not going to the playoffs than the current system of 54 teams having NO chance. But michigan controlled their own destiny. They had a chance. They blew it and lost. You want the "power conferences" to have several bites at the apple and the "smaller conferences" to have zero bites. That is unfair.

What difference does the conference title game being played or not played have to do with it ?? you have your chance to win. go out and beat the other team.

Troy on the other hand goes out gets an 8-4 record and cant even get a bowl invite !!!!!!! Now that is something to whine about.

 

[RetroVK]

Between philosophical differences like we have and the money tied up in the bowl systems , and the likely payoffs to ncaa fatcats ... we wont be seeing a major change anytime soon. maybe an "and one" game, but thats about it.

 

[~Utah]

The rose bowl would never have anything but the Pac-10 and Big-10

If not a playoff, why even have the 54/120 teams in D-1?

 

[majent]

I fail to understand why it is unfair.

To be the champion you should have to win your games.

Because i think the SEC is the best conference ( and i do ) or because you do , doesn't make it true. You cannot arbitrarily say that the pac-10 is better than the mwc this year.

The point i am making is about opportunity. Using your michigan/ohiostate example. You are more upset about a michigan being a really good team and losing to ohio state and therefore not going to the playoffs than the current system of 54 teams having NO chance. But michigan controlled their own destiny. They had a chance. They blew it and lost. You want the "power conferences" to have several bites at the apple and the "smaller conferences" to have zero bites. That is unfair.

What difference does the conference title game being played or not played have to do with it ?? you have your chance to win. go out and beat the other team.

Troy on the other hand goes out gets an 8-4 record and cant even get a bowl invite !!!!!!! Now that is something to whine about.

I am empathetic to your concern for the little guys, really I am, but as I said before, 2007 notwithstanding, there is a very big difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" in college football. I believe 2007 was the exception not the rule, but that remains to be seen.

The reason why I mentioned that the conferences with title games are at a disadvantage in your "seed the conference winners" playoff idea, is because IMHO it is more admirable to lose the SEC title game than it is to win the MAC or the Sun Belt. The 2nd best team in the SEC destroys the winner of the MAC or the Sun Belt. Yes, the underdog wins 7 out of 100, but for the case of sending the best teams to the playoff, I don't understand how a playoff scenario can, in good faith, keep the runner-up in the SEC at home, and send the MAC or Sun Belt winner in their place.

I just cannot see a scenario like that and call it a fair, true, playoff.

This is why I said earlier that a playoff would have to be larger than 4 or 8, it would have to be 16+ in order to include all "deserving" teams and to avoid controversy on who goes, and then we get into a situation where the reg season loses luster as the top teams rest their players during the rivalry games in late November. Can you imagine how much that would suck?

 

[majent]

The rose bowl would never have anything but the Pac-10 and Big-10

If not a playoff, why even have the 54/120 teams in D-1?

In the current BCS system, the PAC-10 has the right to choose whoever they want if the BIG-10 and/or PAC-10 winner is playing in the national title game.

See 2002 season when Ohio State went to the Fiesta Bowl for the BCS national title game and the Rose Bowl chose Oklahoma to play Washington State instead of the 2nd place BIG-10 team.

 

[majent]

Last season, I thought the PAC-10 would opt for Georgia but Illinois got the Rose Bowl berth instead (because Ohio St went to the BCS title game in New Orleans).

Perhaps the Sugar Bowl had the first choice so they took Georgia before Illinois could get them.

 

[RetroVK]

I am empathetic to your concern for the little guys, really I am, but as I said before, 2007 notwithstanding, there is a very big difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" in college football. I believe 2007 was the exception not the rule, but that remains to be seen.

The reason why I mentioned that the conferences with title games are at a disadvantage in your "seed the conference winners" playoff idea, is because IMHO it is more admirable to lose the SEC title game than it is to win the MAC or the Sun Belt. The 2nd best team in the SEC destroys the winner of the MAC or the Sun Belt. Yes, the underdog wins 7 out of 100, but for the case of sending the best teams to the playoff, I don't understand how a playoff scenario can, in good faith, keep the runner-up in the SEC at home, and send the MAC or Sun Belt winner in their place.

I just cannot see a scenario like that and call it a fair, true, playoff.

This is why I said earlier that a playoff would have to be larger than 4 or 8, it would have to be 16+ in order to include all "deserving" teams and to avoid controversy on who goes, and then we get into a situation where the reg season loses luster as the top teams rest their players during the rivalry games in late November. Can you imagine how much that would suck?

One of the reasons for lack of parity between conferences that you discuss is the fact that the small schools are at such a disadvantage. A system that makes for an even playing field would make for more balance nationally. For all the talk about facilities and tradition, good players go to the power conferences so they can play in the big games. Have you ever been to Norman., Oklahoma ?? They get top recruits and Unlv in las vegas can't get anyone. Who would rather live in Norman ?

Tell me what happens if florida atlantic is the best team in the nation in 2008. Tell me what happens if central michigan is the best team in the nation in 2008.

 

[sportjunky]

a playoff would make more games more meaningful. instead of 3 to 5 teams (MAX) playing for a chance at the title during november, you'd have a lot more teams with a shot with just as much on the line every single saturday.

and yes thered still be controversy over the last team out in a 4 or 8 team playoff but at least in the end, the "controversy" wouldnt be what decides who plays for the championship, results on the field would.

 

[majent]

One of the reasons for lack of parity between conferences that you discuss is the fact that the small schools are at such a disadvantage. A system that makes for an even playing field would make for more balance nationally. For all the talk about facilities and tradition, good players go to the power conferences so they can play in the big games. Have you ever been to Norman., Oklahoma ?? They get top recruits and Unlv in las vegas can't get anyone. Who would rather live in Norman ?

Tell me what happens if florida atlantic is the best team in the nation in 2008. Tell me what happens if central michigan is the best team in the nation in 2008.

Tradition in college football is unmatched. Oklahoma gets most of their recruits from Texas, where high school football is king. Those Texas high schoolers wana play major college football, so they go to Oklahoma, Texas, the big schools. Yes, the big schools play in the big games.

Look, the small schools get plenty of chances to score major upsets. The top schools around the country schedule the small guys for the OOC games with regularity. The big schools look at these games as glorified scrimmages, and unfortunately for the little guys, they typically are just that - scrimmages.

For every Appalachian State over Michigan, or Boise State over Oklahoma, there are 80 or 90 times that the *bigger school* wins the game, most times handily.

 

[majent]

Even in college basketball, where Villanova '85 won the championship, most yrs, cinderellas don't even make the Final 4, let alone win the championship on monday night after the Final 4. Sure, George Mason made the Final 4 in '06, but when was the last time a cinderella small school made the Final 4? It just doesn't happen.

College hoops has a big advantage in that they can put the 64 teams in and play 48 games the first weekend, 12 games the next, and finish up with the final 4 and championship game on the monday, essentially it's 63 games in 2.5 wks to determine the champion. This is made possible by the fact the game is not taking such a physical toll on the body, so the winners advancing on through can play each weekend of the tourney on just 2 days rest.

NO WAY something like that works in college football. The game is simply too physical. Forget 64 teams in a playoff, and forget 32 teams in a playoff either. Too many extra games.

THE REGULAR SEASON IS THE PLAYOFF, LOL

 

[sportjunky]

4 team playoff is the only way to do it. one extra game is not too much to ask and the significance of the regular season would not be diminished.

and it makes a lot more sense than the current system.

 

[RetroVK]

Tradition in college football is unmatched. Oklahoma gets most of their recruits from Texas, where high school football is king. Those Texas high schoolers wana play major college football, so they go to Oklahoma, Texas, the big schools. Yes, the big schools play in the big games.

Look, the small schools get plenty of chances to score major upsets. The top schools around the country schedule the small guys for the OOC games with regularity. The big schools look at these games as glorified scrimmages, and unfortunately for the little guys, they typically are just that - scrimmages.

For every Appalachian State over Michigan, or Boise State over Oklahoma, there are 80 or 90 times that the *bigger school* wins the game, most times handily.

They dont get to play home games against the big boys very often ... ooohhhhhh no... they have to play in the bcs conference teams homefield. This just helps to feed the perception of bcs school domination.
in 2007 mwc 4-3 at home against the bcs
in 2006 mwc 1-1 at home against the bcs ( hmmmm)
in 2005 mwc 1-2 at home against the bcs ( hmmmmm )
in 2004 mwc 6-5 at home against the bcs
in 2003 mwc 6-2 at home against the bcs

If the distribution of games at home was more even the perception would not only be destroyed but the smaller conference schools would be able to recruit better. But the current system makes for the small school traveling to the bigger schools stadium because it has more seats in the stadium and more asses in the seats and the "big" school is more likely to win.. Evening the playing field would go a long way to ending the lack of parity between certain conferences.

But lets take a look at the sunbelt for a second. Imagine a scenario one year where florida international has the best team in the nation. It turns out they had a bunch of underrated high school guys that blossomed and developed and/or were misevaluated and they meld together to form the best team in the nation. No one is better. Now lets say the rest of the sunbelt sucks donkeyballs. Does it matter that the rest suck donkeyballs ?? Should that prevent FIU from having a chance to be champion ??? If the entire conference sucks donkeyballs should it mean they shouldn't have a chance to be champion ?? I don't care of the 8 worst teams in the nation were all in one conference. That champion should have a right to play in a playoff.

 

[majent]

They dont get to play home games against the big boys very often ... ooohhhhhh no... they have to play in the bcs conference teams homefield. This just helps to feed the perception of bcs school domination.
in 2007 mwc 4-3 at home against the bcs
in 2006 mwc 1-1 at home against the bcs ( hmmmm)
in 2005 mwc 1-2 at home against the bcs ( hmmmmm )
in 2004 mwc 6-5 at home against the bcs
in 2003 mwc 6-2 at home against the bcs

If the distribution of games at home was more even the perception would not only be destroyed but the smaller conference schools would be able to recruit better. But the current system makes for the small school traveling to the bigger schools stadium because it has more seats in the stadium and more asses in the seats and the "big" school is more likely to win.. Evening the playing field would go a long way to ending the lack of parity between certain conferences.

But lets take a look at the sunbelt for a second. Imagine a scenario one year where florida international has the best team in the nation. It turns out they had a bunch of underrated high school guys that blossomed and developed and/or were misevaluated and they meld together to form the best team in the nation. No one is better. Now lets say the rest of the sunbelt sucks donkeyballs. Does it matter that the rest suck donkeyballs ?? Should that prevent FIU from having a chance to be champion ??? If the entire conference sucks donkeyballs should it mean they shouldn't have a chance to be champion ?? I don't care of the 8 worst teams in the nation were all in one conference. That champion should have a right to play in a playoff.

Kyle, you are a sharp one, but I'm not chopped liver either. Note that I mentioned the Sun Belt and the MAC several times as the "have nots" or the "little guys". I did not say that about the MWC :cheers:

 

[horses]

4 team playoff is the only way to do it. one extra game is not too much to ask and the significance of the regular season would not be diminished.

and it makes a lot more sense than the current system.

Great thread guys, but this little post by sportsjunky hits the nail on the head; this would add just one extra game that could be played the week before the super bowl.

BTW...the 5th ranked team hardly EVER has a claim to the NC.

I'm not even advocating the 'and one' scenario; I'm saying (like SJ) to take the top 4 teams and put them in a mini playoff that would include two traditional bowls around NY's day and then play the 1 extra game 3 weeks later. That's all we need...regular season is left intact and we get a champion on the field.

...and yes, if by chance a non-bcs team runs the table, they should be included in the 4 IMO over a 1-loss BCS team.

My .02.

<!-- / message -->

 

[pstone]

Amen, Majent...

Why does college football have to be like every other sport?

This is a "big boy" message board and we've all heard the arguments for both sides, but, "If it's not broke, don't fix it."

I love the drama of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. March Madness is probably my favorite sporting event of the year. But is college basketball's regular season really all that compelling? Other than bragging rights and perhaps seeding, does UNC-Duke on the second Wednesday in January really matter?

College football is non-stop drama from the opening kickoff in August to the final tick of the clock in the BCS championship game in January.

Leave it alone...

Good luck,
Paul

 

[horses]

Majentic says:

Controversy would still remain over who got in and who didn't, especially if it was only 4, 8, or 16 teams (or anything in between), and the more teams we have in this playoff, the more the regular season suffers.

IMO, there would be less controversy with a 4-team playoff than there is now AND the regular season would be left alone with only 4 teams in the playoff.

 

[majent]

Why does college football have to be like every other sport?

This is a "big boy" message board and we've all heard the arguments for both sides, but, "If it's not broke, don't fix it."

I love the drama of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. March Madness is probably my favorite sporting event of the year. But is college basketball's regular season really all that compelling? Other than bragging rights and perhaps seeding, does UNC-Duke on the second Wednesday in January really matter?

College football is non-stop drama from the opening kickoff in August to the final tick of the clock in the BCS championship game in January.

Leave it alone...

Good luck,
Paul

Nice to see you in here, Stoney. Funny you should say: "If it's not broke, don't fix it." This was the exact phrase I used in a recent email to a group of friends. Problem is, too many people think it's broken. Many (not all) who believe it's broken, are not watching every single waking hour of every single Fall Saturday of college football like we are -- that's why they don't appreciate the regular season quite like we do :cheers:

 

[YesSir]

Yeah, I agree deciding it on the field would be a terrible thing to do

 

[sportjunky]

how is it not broken when we're forced to debate who should play for the title rather than letting the results on the field decide it for us. yah sept-nov is amazing but january sucks. and january is when it should be at its best.

just look at this past years BCS bowls -
sc-illinois? awful
hawaii-georgia? awful
kansas-vtech? more competitive than the first two but it was still a boring matchup.
wva-oklahoma? exciting matchup that turned into a boring blowout.



majent, u honestly disagree that a 4 team playoff would be superior to the current system?

 

[majent]

Majentic says:

Controversy would still remain over who got in and who didn't, especially if it was only 4, 8, or 16 teams (or anything in between), and the more teams we have in this playoff, the more the regular season suffers.

IMO, there would be less controversy with a 4-team playoff than there is now AND the regular season would be left alone with only 4 teams in the playoff.

Less controversy with a 4 team playoff? Only in 2004 (USC, OU, Auburn, Utah all undefeated), or in '06 (tOSU, Florida, Michigan, USC), but every other year there would have been major controversy! Just as much as there is right now, maybe even more!

In '02, Ohio State and Miami go undefeated, who would your next 2 teams be? GL splitting those hairs.

In '03, you've got USC, LSU, and OU, but who would be team #4? Talk about seriously splitting hairs to get that one!

'05, Texas and USC by far the top 2 teams, but what about #'s 3 and 4? A bevy of teams who look the same,

and finally, let's look at '07, please separate these teams for me:

(records going into the bowls)

- Ohio State (11-1) BIG-10 CHAMP but lost to Illinois at home in 2nd to last game of the season!

- LSU (10-2) SEC CHAMP , lost at Kentucky and lost at home to Arkansas

- Georgia (10-2) had 7 or 8 straight wins to end the season but lost at hm to S. Carolina (non-bowl) and at Tennessee

- USC (10-2) PAC 10 CHAMP had 7 or 8 straight wins to end the season but lost at hm to Stanford in an epic upset, and at Oregon

- Missouri (10-2) BIG 12 runner up, lost only to Oklahoma (twice)

- W. Virginia (10-2) BIG EAST CHAMP, losses at S. Florida (bowl team) and at home to Pittsburgh

- Kansas (10-1) only loss to BIG-12 runner up Missour

- Oklahoma (11-2) BIG-12 CHAMP, only losses at Colorado (bowl team) and at Texas Tech (bowl team)

- Va. Tech (11-2) ACC Champ, only losses at LSU (SEC Champ) and vs. BC (bowl team)


Do you see my point that this would create just as much controversy?

4 game playoff will NOT work any better than the current system, and in the current system, *how* you play in every regular season game counts. Close losses are rewarded more than blowout losses, so playing to the final gun is essential in the BCS system!

 

[majent]

Yeah, I agree deciding it on the field would be a terrible thing to do

Turn on your TV this Aug 28th and watch all season, you'll see #'s 1 and 2 decided on the field.

Just like every year.

 

[MusicCityGambler]

The current system encourages teams to bring it every single down, of every single series, of every single game.

If we have a 4 team playoff, there will be years where the #5, 6, 7 teams will have a complaint. Boom -- controversy.

If we have an 8 team playoff, there will be years where the #9, 10, 11 teams will have a complaint. Boom -- controversy.

A 16 team playoff will render the rivalry games in November pretty much meaningless, and turn our beloved college football into the NFL where teams will rest players towards the end of the regular season and play in meaningless games, and I DON'T WANT THAT!!!

College Football is a very unique animal. A physical sport that is not symmetrical in terms of conferences, number of teams, and how it can nicely shaped into a 4, 8, 16, 32 team playoff, etc. It doesn't work that way, which is one of the reasons that the College Football REGULAR SEASON IS THE GREATEST ONE IN ALL OF SPORTS. No other major team sport's regular season can hold a candle to college football, and that's because EVERY GAME ON EVERY SATURDAY COUNTS. Get blown out and it looks worse than playing a close game. Just ask Georgia from 2007 about that.

THE CURRENT SYSTEM PROMOTES THE MOST EXCITING AND WELL-PLAYED REGULAR SEASON POSSIBLE, AND I DON'T WANT IT ANY OTHER WAY. THE CURRENT SYSTEM PROMOTES PLAYING TO THE FINAL WHISTLE, WIN OR LOSE.

Georgia and USC 2007? You guys did not deserve to go over LSU to the BCS. Period. Georgia, you lost at home to S. Carolina who did not even make a bowl game, then got destroyed at Tennessee, 35-14, and the game was 28-0 at halftime, a blowout. USC, you lost at home to Stanford, a 42 pt dog who was playing with their back-up QB. If you had won that game, you would have gone.

W. Virginia, you blew your opportunity by losing to Pitt at home, 13-9. A Pitt team that finished 5-7 and did not go to a bowl.

LSU lost at Kentucky (a bowl team) in 3OT on the road. LSU also lost in 3OT at home to Arkansas who had the best player in the country (RB Darren McFadden). Yes Florida fans, McFadden is and was better than Tim Tebow.

LSU got rewarded for playing to the final whistle. Georgia and USC went on long winning streaks to end the 2007 season because they played the WEAKEST part of their schedules to finish the season. Sorry guys, you can't fool me.

Ohio State and LSU both deserved to go to the 2007 BCS Title Game, and that's exactly how the polls turned out. The voters, both coaches and media guys, got it right. Once in a while, like '90, '97, and '03, we have split polls, and I am okay with that.

Take it from a super-fan who has watched 300+ straight Fall Saturdays over the last 22 yrs (since 1986). I live for this sport.

A PLAYOFF WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

I don't want that, and neither should you...........

Amen. It would be the worst thing that could happen to the sport. Playoff systems are fun but they aren't efficient and they give big edges to weaker teams. I think it's good to have one sport where the best team is always rewarded for being so.

Part of me wants a playoff introduced so all these simple-minded morons who get all their opinions from ESPN can see how much less exciting CFB would be with a playoff system. Once people could actually compare the two, most people would return to the old system where every game matters.

 

[sportjunky]

i don't understand your obsession with "controversy"

there wouldn't be more "controversy" with a playoff because the participants in the TITLE game would actually be decided by the sport of football. the way it stands now, unless we get lucky and end up with two undefeated BCS conference teams, the "controversy" DECIDES who the final two teams are. its fucking retarded.

 

[horses]

Do you see my point that this would create just as much controversy?

Not in the least; having the game decided on the field without impacting the regular season should be the goal of any college football fan. A four-team playoff does exactly that. I noticed above you mention it would create as much controversy (but not necessarily more). Based on that, if the 'controversy is the same' and the regular season isn't impacted, why not have the playoff and decide it on the field? The only argument I've seen you formulate against such a scenario is bringing up past seasons and splitting hairs over who the 3rd or 4th team should be; well, I would much rather split hairs over the 3rd or 4th team instead of the Mythical National Championship (MNC) team which is exactly what we have now.

You actually bring up past years to support your case; half the years the BCS has been in existence there has been significant controversy as to if the best team has even been IN the championship game; how the heck is that better than splitting hairs over deciding who the 4th best team is to go to a mini-playoff, where you are virtually assured of having the best team among that group.

 

[PURPLE & GOLD]

Well put horses.

The problem is with conferences and the differences each one presents.
Not heading into the SEC dominance topic but its clear that its damn near impossible to be a Top 20 team with a Top 5 ranking and skirt through the SEC. It hasnt and will not happen. If every conference could provide the same promise and then force the two best teams OR two best teams from each side to play in a final conference championship then I could accept magent's take and let the "voters" decide the outcome. Unfortunately over half of said "voters" are less informed than most if not all of the posters in this thread.

Until something changes this will be an extraordinary topic that has views and opinions from all sides. Unfortunately those with magent's view have the power and benefit from the money that is currently involved.

Unless you are from USC, Ohio State, Michigan and maybe even UT or Oklahoma in given years I just cant see someone being a true fan having the leave it the same take. However, magent just proved to me that he has the stance. I did notice he is from Southern California so it "could" be that he is a Trojan fan. Which I could understand having that opinion when you have no conference championship and a reputation (fair or not) of being a 2 to 3 team conference in most years in the PAC-10.

No system will provide a true balance in the necessary avenues to obtain a birth in the championship game. I mean the preseason rankings should have no weight in determining who goes and who doesnt. With that said LSU would not have played in the game last year if it didnt. Now look at LSU's out of conference schedule from this year. It is atrocious and our schedule maker should be fired if he cant do a little better. My fear is that he was instructed to supply 4 rent a wins to balance out the brutal nature of an SEC schedule. On the other hand OSU has scheduled some serious OOC matchups for many years to come. We can all see that OSU needs that game and a win in it to have a shot at the BCS with that Big 10 schedule they get to walk through. In the end I am afraid magent will get his way and we will be stuck with a media driven popularity contest that has in recent past left an undefeated SEC team out in the cold.
Thats right on this day at this moment the BCS is so powerful it can cause me to defend Auburn. YUCK.

 

[horses]

Good point about the conference championships PG, yet another variable.

And just for the record (whatever that means), I am a proponent of a 4-team playoff ONLY. I would rather things stay the way they are than go to an 8-team playoff, where Majentic would be 100% correct about cfb losing the one thing that is sacred to it...the regular season.

 

[majent]

Good point about the conference championships PG, yet another variable.

And just for the record (whatever that means), I am a proponent of a 4-team playoff ONLY. I would rather things stay the way they are than go to an 8-team playoff, where Majentic would be 100% correct about cfb losing the one thing that is sacred to it...the regular season.

Horses, I have always respected your opinion, and am a bit intrigued by the 4-team scenario you are speaking of. The problem is, with that scenario, there is still a *chance*, however small it might be, that even with the 4-team scenario, complacency could set in with a team that is undefeated late in the season, yet assured that even if they lose 1 game, they will be included in the 4-team playoff. If you remember, this occurred in 2003 when Oklahoma knew they were going to the BCS championship game even prior to playing in the BIG-12 title game, and then proceeded to lose 35-7 to K-State in said BIG-12 title game.

The BCS tweaked the system to include the conference championship games, and voillah, it was fixed.

In your 4-team playoff scenario, there is a chance that a team will take a week off late in the yr to rest players and prepare for the playoff.

Under the current system, there is a built in "no chance" that a team can take a week off because every result is being considered by the BCS formula and BOTH polls.

 

[horses]

and am a bit intrigued by the 4-team scenario you are speaking of. The problem is, with that scenario, there is still a *chance*, however small it might be, that even with the 4-team scenario, complacency could set in with a team that is undefeated late in the season, yet assured that even if they lose 1 game, they will be included in the 4-team playoff.

I concede that there could be a scenario where this would occur; however, an undefeated #1 still has to be a little leary if there are 4 one loss teams trailing them. If not, your point is taken.

If you remember, this occurred in 2003 when Oklahoma knew they were going to the BCS championship game even prior to playing in the BIG-12 title game, and then proceeded to lose 35-7 to K-State in said BIG-12 title game.

Yep and I was actually going to bring this up because it just illustrates that a team can mail it in under the current system as well. Unfortunately, there is always this possibility in any team sport at this level. I admit there is a better chance of it occuring with the 4-team playoff than the current system, so one has really to make the choice. For me, the slightly increased possibility is worth it and warrants the playoff.

Good discussion...I'm ready for the season. :shake:

 

[majent]

If you remember, this occurred in 2003 when Oklahoma knew they were going to the BCS championship game even prior to playing in the BIG-12 title game, and then proceeded to lose 35-7 to K-State in said BIG-12 title game.

Yep and I was actually going to bring this up because it just illustrates that a team can mail it in under the current system as well. Unfortunately, there is always this possibility in any team sport at this level. I admit there is a better chance of it occuring with the 4-team playoff than the current system, so one has really to make the choice. For me, the slightly increased possibility is worth it and warrants the playoff.

Good discussion...I'm ready for the season. :shake:

After the 2003 Oklahoma situation, the BCS committee tweaked the formula to include the conference championship games, so alas, a team really cannot mail it in under the current system (current as of 2004).

The College Football regular season in 2008 remains the ONLY regular season in ANY major team sport where the teams who are in contention for a title late in the season MUST CONTINUE giving their all for the entire 60 minutes of a game in order to earn their right into the BCS title game!

In 2006, all USC had to do was beat UCLA on Championship Saturday, but they could not get it done. Florida, on that same day, beat Arkansas in the SEC Conf Championship game and EARNED their right into the BCS national title game.

In 2007, all West Virginia had to do was beat Pittsburgh on the final day of the season, and they would have gone to the BCS national title game. On that same day, Missouri had to beat Oklahoma in the BIG-12 title game, and they too would have been rewarded with the BCS title game berth.

They both lost on the same day!

And on that same day, LSU beat Tennessee in the SEC Conf Championship game and EARNED their right into the BCS Title game.

NO OTHER REGULAR SEASON ANYWHERE CAN BOAST A FINISH LIKE THAT, AND THIS IS WHY COLLEGE FOOTBALL HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE MY FAVORITE SPORT (coming from a die-hard sports fan).

 

[TheGarfather]

1) Majent, take a look around you. How could there possibly be any more controversy than what we have now? There are thousands of threads like this on the internet every single year and there always will be because what you have now is a controversy-driven system. (I think those in charge actually like how shitty it is because they get more attention.) The only thing people talk about on talk radio and sports tv from November through January is how terrible the BCS is, and they're right.

2) Why are you more concerned with who gets into the field than finding out who #1 really is? You seem to be so concerned with #9 feeling left out that you are content to keep a system where #3 might actually be #1 and they never get the chance to prove it. Strange.

3) You say you can poke holes in any playoff argument which is an intellectually lazy position to take. Of course you can. So can I, and I am the one making the argument. All you have to do is say why something isn't perfect, the burden of proof isn't on you to say why its not better than this farce we currently we have. And-1, 4 team, or 8 team are all better choices than the current arrangement. (16 or 32 is getting carried away). Why don't you go tell March Madness folks or Roger Goodell that their playoffs ruin their regular season so they should just vote on a champion instead! LMAO!!! See how far you get with that, but invite me first cause I want to see the reactions. (Majent walks into Roger's office and with a straight-face and says "sir, weeks 16 and 17 are pretty meaningless in your league so I think you ought to do away with the SB and just have some writers and coaches decide who they think is best.") LMAO

 

[TheGarfather]

Having the regular season matter is really cool. What would also be cool is if half-a-dozen, maybe even 7 or 8 bowl games really mattered because the teams were actually playing for something, instead of just having one bowl game matter. Under the current format, people don't even watch the Cotton Bowl anymore. Too bad.