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

[majent]

College Football Champions since the inception of the BCS in 1998:

(Please tell me the champions you disagree with)

1998 Tennessee
1999 Florida State
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio State
2003 LSU (USC wins the AP vote -- we have co-nat'l champions and I am okay with that, what's the big deal America?)
2004 USC
2005 Texas
2006 Florida
2007 LSU

10 years, 11 champions, who in my mind were all deserving the year they won.

Please point out that team(s) that did not deserve to be champions?

 

[majent]

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.

The Cotton Bowl usually kicks off at 8:30 am PDT on New Year's Day when the entire West Coast (except for those of us die-hards who wake up early) are fast asleep trying to sleep off their hangovers from New Year's Eve.

Bad example, dude.

 

[majent]

College Football Champions since the inception of the BCS in 1998:

(Please tell me the champions you disagree with)

1998 Tennessee
1999 Florida State
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio State
2003 LSU (USC wins the AP vote -- we have co-nat'l champions and I am okay with that, what's the big deal America?)
2004 USC
2005 Texas
2006 Florida
2007 LSU

10 years, 11 champions, who in my mind were all deserving the year they won.

Please point out that team(s) that did not deserve to be champions?

Now let's talk about the runner-ups, please point out which team(s) did not deserve to be there:

1998 Florida State
1999 Virginia Tech
2000 Florida State
2001 Nebraska (this caused quite a fuss but they were ranked higher than Oregon in the BCS and i did not have a problem with it. Oregon lost at hm that yr to Stanford, and Nebraska lost at Colorado, Oregon's loss was less excusable, case closed)
2002 Miami
2003 Oklahoma
2004 Oklahoma
2005 USC
2006 tOSU
2007 tOSU

Now someone please tell me which of these runner-ups did not deserve to be there, and who should have gone in their place.

I believe I can quite easily explain why the BCS placed them there..

 

[majent]

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

Gar, please tell me the last regular season CBB game you have truly cared about... I bet there are none. The CBB reg season is an afterthought -- talk about something no one cares about.

And the coaches and writers are just part of the BCS equation -- most of the equation is what they do on the field.

 

[horses]

I believe I can quite easily explain why the BCS placed them there..

of that I have no doubt; that, to me, is not the point though, because I could do the same thing and I don't even agree with it.

In the year's 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007 I can point out teams that would have been favored on a neutral field over the loser of the MNC (Miami, Fl, Colorado or Oregon, USC and USC respectively). 2004 just screamed out for a 4-team playoff. That's five years and plenty enough to justify a 4 team playoff considering the LVSC wouldn't have even considered one of the two best teams to be in the MNC in at least four of those years. The other years, the two teams in the MNC probably deserved to be there, but playing one extra game to get there and winning it (thus proving it on the field) seems very reasonable to me.

 

[TheGarfather]

Wow, I totally have a huge problem with the word "deserve" being used here. Its about determining who is best. This isn't T-ball where there is a pizza party and trophies after the last game. You are treating this whole issue like some stupid football banquet where we all celebrate how hard we tried and what good seasons we had. This is supposed to be a chance to win a national championship and prove that you were the best. The stated goal of the BCS and the whole reason it was put in place over over the bowl coalition was to have the two best teams meet for the championship. That's it. That was the goal.

It has failed in several out of 11 years. Let's count them quickly.

1998 - Ohio State was the best team in the country I believe. And if you watched all the games like you claim you do, then you will agree. Tennessee was never disproven on the field therefore I don't have a problem with the result, but I don't believe they were the best and I know for sure FSU (even with Weinke) wasn't second best. Nick Saban and MSU ran very hot and cold that year and they happened to get hot one night in Columbus. When Julian Peterson wanted to take over a game he sure could. A much "higher quality" loss than getting blown out by a mediocre NC State team. Best team determined? Not in my mind. BCS goal accomplished? No.

1999 - Florida State was the best team I thought, so the ends may have justified the means. There is still a lot of question in my mind as to whether or not VT was really the second best and belonged in that game. I felt it at the time (took some money from folks I knew -7, before my days of online wagering) and feel that way now. RFr Vick wasn't prepared to run an entire offense against that caliber of a defense for 60 minutes and FSU just had too many weapons, Warrick for one. I think Nebraska was the better team and I think they would have provided the better game (which a playoff could have answered for us and polls never will), but they had a loss and VT didn't so your mantra about "deserved" may fit here even if that is a totally silly notion that doesn't really matter to this discussion.

2000 - If you had a playoff this year, Oregon State would have won it all and Oklahoma and Florida State would have out in the first round. I could have lived with Miami or Washington even, but not that horror show put on by the Noles. This was a garbage matchup with two average teams who both played like dogshit. This year we didn't get the top two with certainty, I'm not convinced and will never be that we got the right winner, and we sure as heck didn't fill your "deserved" requirement as Miami beat FSU and UW beat Miami. This year is why you need either a 6 or 8 team playoff and can't cut it off at 4. Virginia Tech and Oregon were solid that season as well (maybe even solid enough to have won 3 in a row).

2001 - Miami was the best team, and it would have been proven in a playoff too so the BCS got bailed out in a big way as everyone apart from you agrees Nebraska shouldn't have been anywhere near that game. They got the score run up on them in their season finale against Colorado (a team that Oregon flatout dominated in every phase of the game). Riddle me this: if Nebraska finished 3rd in the Big 12 how could they have been top 2 in the nation? It was quite clear before, during, and after the championship game that Nebraska didn't measure up. Deciding the degree of loss excusability with some asinine unscientific methodology is not a valid way of determining a champion. BCS failed, but best team not in question.

2002 - No argument here, but it was really just a coincidence that everything worked as oosOSU was very close to losing multiple games (and I think Miami had a close scrape with FSU, no?). That is the problem, when the BCS works out, its really just luck, whereas a playoff is correct 100% of the time its tried.

2003 - Complete and utter BCS meltdown disaster failure. A split championship should never be considered acceptable to any sports fan. That is some little kid BS, "we're all winners". I didn't at the time and still don't have a great feel for whether or not LSU or USC was the superior team, but one thing is known: we the fans DESERVED to see it.

2004 - Another huge nightmare for the BCS. USC would have probably won a playoff too, so I think the best team came through clean, but its totally unfair to Auburn and Utah that they were never disproven on the field. I am unfamiliar with any playoff system where 3 teams can finish the season undefeated. Are you?

2005 - no argument.

2006 - This is why you need a playoff. Maybe Michigan beats oosOSU on a neutral field. Maybe a 2-loss USC teams beats UF, LSU, OSU, and Michigan after getting a couple weeks off from a brutal stretch of 3 ranked opponents. It wasn't UCLA that beat them it was their schedule, which wasn't an issue for the Big Ten schools. Different levels of schedule difficulty are a huge reason you need a playoff as it sorts itself out, say it with me now: ON THE FIELD. Maybe LSU was the best team in the final analysis, talentwise they sure were, that carried over into...

2007 - how spectacular would a playoff have been last year? USC, Georgia, oosOSU, and LSU. Seed them 1-4 anyway you like.

Yeah, sure glad we have the BCS. This is just so much better (rolls eyes). Jesus.

Cotton Bowl used to be a great bowl! Wasn't always on early either. It still features some good teams as do the Gator and Capital One bowls as well. By using your (the current) way only one game matters. The Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, and Orange bowls were meaningless except once every four years and now they are totally meaningless. Nice system.

 

[TheGarfather]

Gar, please tell me the last regular season CBB game you have truly cared about... I bet there are none. The CBB reg season is an afterthought -- talk about something no one cares about.

And the coaches and writers are just part of the BCS equation -- most of the equation is what they do on the field.

I am almost as big of a college basketball fan as I am of college football, so I am a bad example, but you're right its apples and oranges between the two collegiate sports. The excitement of MM is so much more intense than anything you can find in NCAAF though. I think it would be great for football to have the best regular season and the second best playoff in all of sports.

That same issue of regular season complacency is decidedly not the case with the NFL. Their regular season matters tremendously. Of course I don't expect you to go talk to Roger and I can't picture it because I don't know who you are nor what you look like, but you do see how silly that would be? Nobody disputes the NFL's way of determining their champion (playoff), juxtaposed to NCAAF where a majority strongly question the way things are done which creates the controversy you fear. You can (and will) have things change from a vote to playoff, but there is never any shot in hell of the reverse happening which forces one to question the validity of a vote.

 

[horses]

wow...just disregard my post and look at Garfathers; very excellent post and I agree with it 100% except the part about having more than a four-team playoff. (One out of ten years is no justification for adding more teams above four).

Again...spot on post...wish I had taken the time to put something like it together...:shake:

PS I.m a sucker for these discussions.

 

[TheGarfather]

I'm going to go ahead and rest my case, I need to be doing some more handicapping and I have this argument at least once per summer and winter so I will call it good for now. I think I stated my positions clearly and I think many/most will agree with me even if you and I just don't see eye to eye.

 

[~Utah]

1) I think you are completely overstating how big of a college football country this is, its not a college football country, its a football country. Maybe where you live college football is huge, and I know it is huge in a lot of the country, but personally in the area I live in, Pitt football,WVU football and even PSU football take a backseat to a lot of things. Are they popular? Yes but are people watching every game? Unless you go to the school not really.
2) The NFL which I think you will agree is more popular here in the USA and worldwide really has plenty of meaningless games, where they bench the starters and no one really cares, the ratings are still up, and everyone is still on their couches on sunday, in fact there even talking about making an 18th game.
3) As I pointed out, people would still be watching even if their are meaningless games but I cant see that scenario coming up if there is a 4 team playoff. If you are #1 going into the end of the season if you lose there is a good chance you could fall to #5 and even though it might not happen, not one team will want to take that chance. Was it OSU that went from 7 to the national championship in one weekend without even playing? That is a flawed system. When a team can actually not a play a down of football and jump from a supposed 7 seed to a national championship
4) It blows my mind how you could argue a playoff system will cause contreversy. The BCS is one big contreversy as Garfather pointed out, every year, year in, and year out, people complain. I dont see how you can support a system that ranks out by how badly you beat a team and how you run the score up. You can argue that Auburn deserved to be a national champion in 2005. But why werent they? Because they didnt win by enough in their bowl game, how is that a good system, where is the sportsmanship in that. Not to mention im pretty sure the touchdown that they allowed to happen was a special teams TD.
5) Even though you might disagree with it, the majority doesnt, whats the whole point of sports and the BCS and etc...? It's to entertain the people, and while you might be entertained, a lot of people hate the system, if you have the whole nation backing a playoff, and the majority does, then I dont understand how we are still even discussing "if there was a playoff", it should be "now that their's a playoff." The fans are what make this sport possible, and the college, the BCS , whoever the hell runs this shit are not doing what the fans want, and I believe that is pretty damn wrong

 

[horses]

Garfather...you suck.

 

[~Utah]

Garfather your post just blow me away

 

[majent]

I believe I can quite easily explain why the BCS placed them there..

of that I have no doubt; that, to me, is not the point though, because I could do the same thing and I don't even agree with it.

In the year's 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007 I can point out teams that would have been favored on a neutral field over the loser of the MNC (Miami, Fl, Colorado or Oregon, USC and USC respectively). 2004 just screamed out for a 4-team playoff. That's five years and plenty enough to justify a 4 team playoff considering the LVSC wouldn't have even considered one of the two best teams to be in the MNC in at least four of those years. The other years, the two teams in the MNC probably deserved to be there, but playing one extra game to get there and winning it (thus proving it on the field) seems very reasonable to me.

Who is favored on a neutral field means very little. All it means is that public perception says one team should be favored over another. I don't think I need to bring up how many more times the #2 team has beaten the #1 team in h2h matchups. It's a crazy statistic.

 

[majent]

Wow, I totally have a huge problem with the word "deserve" being used here. Its about determining who is best. This isn't T-ball where there is a pizza party and trophies after the last game. You are treating this whole issue like some stupid football banquet where we all celebrate how hard we tried and what good seasons we had. This is supposed to be a chance to win a national championship and prove that you were the best. The stated goal of the BCS and the whole reason it was put in place over over the bowl coalition was to have the two best teams meet for the championship. That's it. That was the goal.

It has failed in several out of 11 years. Let's count them quickly.

1998 - Ohio State was the best team in the country I believe. And if you watched all the games like you claim you do, then you will agree. Tennessee was never disproven on the field therefore I don't have a problem with the result, but I don't believe they were the best and I know for sure FSU (even with Weinke) wasn't second best. Nick Saban and MSU ran very hot and cold that year and they happened to get hot one night in Columbus. When Julian Peterson wanted to take over a game he sure could. A much "higher quality" loss than getting blown out by a mediocre NC State team. Best team determined? Not in my mind. BCS goal accomplished? No.

1999 - Florida State was the best team I thought, so the ends may have justified the means. There is still a lot of question in my mind as to whether or not VT was really the second best and belonged in that game. I felt it at the time (took some money from folks I knew -7, before my days of online wagering) and feel that way now. RFr Vick wasn't prepared to run an entire offense against that caliber of a defense for 60 minutes and FSU just had too many weapons, Warrick for one. I think Nebraska was the better team and I think they would have provided the better game (which a playoff could have answered for us and polls never will), but they had a loss and VT didn't so your mantra about "deserved" may fit here even if that is a totally silly notion that doesn't really matter to this discussion.

2000 - If you had a playoff this year, Oregon State would have won it all and Oklahoma and Florida State would have out in the first round. I could have lived with Miami or Washington even, but not that horror show put on by the Noles. This was a garbage matchup with two average teams who both played like dogshit. This year we didn't get the top two with certainty, I'm not convinced and will never be that we got the right winner, and we sure as heck didn't fill your "deserved" requirement as Miami beat FSU and UW beat Miami. This year is why you need either a 6 or 8 team playoff and can't cut it off at 4. Virginia Tech and Oregon were solid that season as well (maybe even solid enough to have won 3 in a row).

2001 - Miami was the best team, and it would have been proven in a playoff too so the BCS got bailed out in a big way as everyone apart from you agrees Nebraska shouldn't have been anywhere near that game. They got the score run up on them in their season finale against Colorado (a team that Oregon flatout dominated in every phase of the game). Riddle me this: if Nebraska finished 3rd in the Big 12 how could they have been top 2 in the nation? It was quite clear before, during, and after the championship game that Nebraska didn't measure up. Deciding the degree of loss excusability with some asinine unscientific methodology is not a valid way of determining a champion. BCS failed, but best team not in question.

2002 - No argument here, but it was really just a coincidence that everything worked as oosOSU was very close to losing multiple games (and I think Miami had a close scrape with FSU, no?). That is the problem, when the BCS works out, its really just luck, whereas a playoff is correct 100% of the time its tried.

2003 - Complete and utter BCS meltdown disaster failure. A split championship should never be considered acceptable to any sports fan. That is some little kid BS, "we're all winners". I didn't at the time and still don't have a great feel for whether or not LSU or USC was the superior team, but one thing is known: we the fans DESERVED to see it.

2004 - Another huge nightmare for the BCS. USC would have probably won a playoff too, so I think the best team came through clean, but its totally unfair to Auburn and Utah that they were never disproven on the field. I am unfamiliar with any playoff system where 3 teams can finish the season undefeated. Are you?

2005 - no argument.

2006 - This is why you need a playoff. Maybe Michigan beats oosOSU on a neutral field. Maybe a 2-loss USC teams beats UF, LSU, OSU, and Michigan after getting a couple weeks off from a brutal stretch of 3 ranked opponents. It wasn't UCLA that beat them it was their schedule, which wasn't an issue for the Big Ten schools. Different levels of schedule difficulty are a huge reason you need a playoff as it sorts itself out, say it with me now: ON THE FIELD. Maybe LSU was the best team in the final analysis, talentwise they sure were, that carried over into...

2007 - how spectacular would a playoff have been last year? USC, Georgia, oosOSU, and LSU. Seed them 1-4 anyway you like.

Yeah, sure glad we have the BCS. This is just so much better (rolls eyes). Jesus.

Cotton Bowl used to be a great bowl! Wasn't always on early either. It still features some good teams as do the Gator and Capital One bowls as well. By using your (the current) way only one game matters. The Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, and Orange bowls were meaningless except once every four years and now they are totally meaningless. Nice system.

1998 - You made my argument for me. tOSU loses at home to hot-and-cold, as you call them, Michigan St team. (tOSU was favored by 24 pts that day!) Unacceptable loss. FSU's loses at bowl team NC State in hostile environment.

1999 - V.Tech went 11-0 that regular season! WTF are you talking about???

2000 - Oklahoma went undefeated on the reg season and played the best runner-up available! Did you miss that season???

2001 - Oregon beat Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl, well after the reg season was over. Nebraska had to play them in Boulder. Big difference there.

2003 - I'll give you this one, but personally, I have NEVER had a problem with split national champions

2004 - USC and OU were the most impressive looking teams all season in terms of who they beat and by how much. The 2 best teams made the title game.

2005 - Hallelujah!!!

2006 - The 2 best teams made the title game, the best team won

2007 - see 2006

 

[majent]

I'm going to go ahead and rest my case, I need to be doing some more handicapping and I have this argument at least once per summer and winter so I will call it good for now. I think I stated my positions clearly and I think many/most will agree with me even if you and I just don't see eye to eye.

We will agree to disagree. Great discussion. Just like I respect Horses, I respect you the same Garfather.

As far as people agreeing, yes, the vast majority of the public will agree with you re: the desire for a playoff. But I have always marched to the beat of a different drum. Very few, probably just a few hundred people in the world or less, have watched, followed, and researched as much college football as I have the last 22 yrs, so when I believe something about this great sport that I love more than life, I believe it from deep within.

Best wishes this season

:cheers:

 

[PURPLE & GOLD]

The thing about the split national champions is simple.

Petey went all year praising the BCS and its the system we will live by.

Then his team due in large part to having an easier schedule at the end of the season than it appeared at the beginning of season and chiefly based on the lack of a conference championship game was left out.

They then went on to soundly beat a team that had NOTHING to do with the 3 teams that were all legitimate contenders to fill the 2 spots for the BCS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Just like the voters rigged the polls to get LSU into the BCS game in 2007 they rigged it to put USC on top IRREGARDLESS OF THE REAL NATIONAL TITLE GAME IN WHICH USC WAS NO PART.

Even more so LSU held the most explosive power program offense in recent memory to damn near negative yards in the first half. Without the exceeded capacity in the DOME and the team wide cramps LSU endured the game would have likely continued in a horrific fashion for Oklahoma.
LSU got ZERO CREDIT going into the game and then beat Oklahoma which most didnt see coming and what do they get? A slap in the face and a media darling award given to the ESPN tied PAC-10 heroes of USC.

Let your team get to the game, follow all the rules, smack a team around that just weeks earlier was hyped as the best team in the history of college football (by the same network that annointed USC the other best team ever and encouraged the GAYP voters to give them a split) and be told well your title doesnt really count. WTF? 2 months earlier Petey was all about the BCS and the system. It doesnt go his way and only the AP matters. Its clear that SOCAL people wont ever get the hypocrisy involved with your program and its pseudo-3 pete campaign.

The real blows were dealt when NFL invisible man Mike Williams referred to the hicks and cowfields in Baton Rouge. And Reggie Bush was found to be in complete violation of several NCAA mandates against collegiate players and gifts/ties to agents etc. By the way where is this case? Where are the violations that are sure to be coming of such overwhelming missteps? But the biggest problem was the ignorant proclamation that USC would have rolled up LSU had they met. How ignorant of a statement can one make. Do I feel that the soft nature of that Trojan team would have crumpled against my Tigers? Damn Straight - Hell I will go Trojan fan on you and guarandamntee it. But the point is we will never know and to say such things just illustrates the overall lack of knowledge most USC "fans" possess.

Split Title Are Horrible. Especially when operating with AGREEMENT by all parties under one system that is designed (albeit awfully) to annoint ONE champ per season.

THE 2003 and 2007 COLLEGIATE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS: LSU TIGERS
Disclaimer: In 03-A tree hugger alliance of spoiled kids abused in grade school pooled their resources and GAVE a paper championship to the gayest team in all of sports.....The USC Trojan hats.

 

[majent]

P&G, why are you blaming Pete Carroll for USC's 2003 National Title?

Blame the AP voters who VOTED UNANIMOUSLY for USC as the AP top team!

First and only time in 10 years of the BCS that a team other than the the BCS champion was voted #1!!!

The AP voters recognized in 2003 that A) USC looked like the best team, and B) Conference Championship Games were not included in the BCS formula at the time, hence Oklahoma's blowout loss to K-State that year did not hurt them (or did it, LOL)

Horses brought up teams favored over other teams on neutral fields, and how that reflects that many yrs the BCS champion is not really that, well, USC in 2003, according to oddsmakers in Vegas AND offshore, would have been a favorite over LSU on a "neutral field", even the neutral field you all have at the New Orleans Super Dome,

funny how LSU has gotten to play 2 BCS Championship games right in their backyard. If I was an LSU fan, I would just be happy to be the first College Football champion EVER to have 2 losses, and also the first BCS Title game participant to have 2 BCS title games played within a few hr's drive of my campus

 

[majent]

P&G, another thing you LSU fans should be doing is thanking the football Gods that West Virginia, a 28 pt favorite in their final game vs. Pittsburgh, could not close the deal. Having Pat White nicked up did not help their cause, but if they win that game by 1 lousy point, your LSU Tigers do not become the 1st team in College Football history to have 2 losses yet still play in the national championship game.

A little bit of luck can go a very, very, very long way. The LSU Tigers should know this better than anyone.

(Interesting that the 2 most debated national championships occurred in 2003 and 2007, both years that LSU was in the BCS title game)

 

[E.T.G.]

1) I think you are completely overstating how big of a college football country this is, its not a college football country, its a football country. Maybe where you live college football is huge, and I know it is huge in a lot of the country, but personally in the area I live in, Pitt football,WVU football and even PSU football take a backseat to a lot of things. Are they popular? Yes but are people watching every game? Unless you go to the school not really.

see this is where conferences like the SEC differ, CFB is a year round sport in the south for the fans

 

[RetroVK]

hmmmm

football : south ( by a mile )
women : south ( by seven or eight miles )
cooking : south by a mile
driving : south by a mile
wealth: north
weather : south
politics : south
civil war : north ( that was a long time ago. )
education: north ( higher percentage of private schools. public schools suck)

south wins again.

 

[horses]

south wins again.

Bad news; you have to win once to win again.

 

[RetroVK]

south wins again.

Bad news; you have to win once to win again.

That's why all of us folks from the south like to move up north when we retire and can do what we want ..... oh wait ..... that's right ... the people in the north move down south first chance they get , not the other way around.

 

[TheGarfather]

hmmmm

football : south ( by a mile )
women : south ( by seven or eight miles )
cooking : south by a mile
driving : south by a mile
wealth: north
weather : south
politics : south
civil war : north ( that was a long time ago. )
education: north ( higher percentage of private schools. public schools suck)

south wins again.

Dear Van Smack,

Here are some other categories we win: toothlessness, moonshining, obesity, alcoholism, trousers, ridiculous beehive hairstyles, and xenophobia.

Sincerely,

Hicks

Sam in Portland

PS - War Wyoming -9 actually being available.

 

[RetroVK]

Dear Van Smack,

Here are some other categories we win: toothlessness, moonshining, obesity, alcoholism, trousers, ridiculous beehive hairstyles, and xenophobia.

Sincerely,

Hicks

Sam in Portland

PS - War Wyoming -9 actually being available.

:36_11_6:

Dittos rush ... oooops wrong show. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

 

[majent]

Here are 2 very short reads which explain why a playoff is not going to happen
any time soon.

1) ESPN just made a huge bid to get the BCS games on its network, meaning all
the BCS bowls could be on cable within 2 yrs. In other words, the bidding war
means money is pouring in to get the games and the NCAA, like any other company
would be, is fine by that.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3697923

2) Straight from the mouth of the Chairperson of the BCS Presidential Oversight
Committee: "We have the most compelling regular season in all of sports, and
I'm sure that contributes to Senator Obama's enjoyment of our great game."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3697109
</pre>

 

[PURPLE & GOLD]

Well Obama wants a playoff and he believes in change and he has to change alot of minds and dammit the BCS is a good place to start.


Agreed the setup is the problem. No way the conferences relinquish the power (see money) they have over the setup as it is. If USC remains on the outside looking in I predict the PAC-10 will either seek out more participants or having a "conference championship" with the teams it has now. At some point the PAC-10 and BIG 11 have to wake up and smell the crystal ball.

 

[majent]

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" class="storytitle">Harbach Blog...So you want a Playoff? </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="primaryimage" valign="top">

The Sears Trophy, how will your team earn it?
</td> <td width="3" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="top"> <table width="60%" bgcolor="#f5f5f5" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td valign="middle" nowrap="nowrap">By Brian Harbach
Collegefootballnews.com
Posted Nov 18, 2008
</td> <td nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Having never been a fan of any Playoff system, the BCS has never been something I viewed as bad for college football. There are serious problems with an eight team playoff as well as the most likely Plus-One format. Can we protect the regular season while getting what fans want...a champion determined on the field?
</td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="3">

[SIZE=-1]By [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Brian Harbach[/SIZE]​

The Problem
To be completely honest, I hate the idea of a college football playoff. I hate the idea of turning Appalachian State vs. Michigan into a preseason game with no significance, I hate the fact that rivalry games will become week 17 of the NFL and I hate the fact that no one agrees with me. Since I have done my best to convince family and friends that my opinion is the right one I will now turn my attention to the masses who want a college football playoff more than Pete Carroll and Urban Meyer want to use timeouts to run up the score on Stanford and Georgia.

My biggest issue with a playoff (and when I say playoff I am talking about anything over 4 teams or the idea of a plus one in 2 different bowl sites) is that it absolutely ruins our regular season. Would it really matter if Michigan lost to Appalachian State if they got to play for a championship by winning the Big 10? Would USC use their starters against Notre Dame late in the season if they knew a couple weeks later they would be playing in a game that meant more for their National Title hopes? Of course they wouldn’t, the goal of NFL teams is to win their division and get to the playoffs, the goal of college football teams is to win all their games.

This distinction is why college football is amazing each week and why the only people who care about week 17 of the NFL are people playing fantasy football. Georgia fans, do you really want your coach answering questions on how much they are going to play your starters against Georgia Tech? Florida fans, do you want to risk Tim Tebow getting hurt against Florida State if he has to be ready to play Alabama for the right to get into a playoff? These are valid questions that NFL teams have to answer all the time because some NFL games don’t matter. If the Patriots weren’t going after history against the Giants week 17 of the 2007 season, is there any way that Brady and the other starters are in that game? No way.

I know most fans are frustrated with a system that always seems to screw a team over and seemingly makes a bad decision each year. Keep in mind that this anti-playoff sentiment is coming from an Auburn alum who witnessed the greatest BCS tragedy in 2004 when three BCS conference teams were undefeated and one of them was left out. My team was left out and I still don’t want to see a playoff in college football. The price we have to pay to get a playoff is too high and other solutions such as a BCS top 4 or top 8 will never be agreed upon by the smaller conferences because they will feel alienated.

Even the Plus-One format has some serious flaws that will make it unfair for smaller BCS conference schools and the non-BCS schools. A plus one would use two different bowl sites, for this example we will assume the Orange and the Sugar host the national semi-final games with the Sugar bowl hosting the championship game a week later. The problem with this is schools with smaller alumni bases will have a hard time filling seats and selling tickets. Teams with larger fan bases will be able to sell more tickets, bring more fans and have a home game instead of a true neutral bowl location.

Making matters worse is that even if that small school (Wake Forest) was able to sell all its tickets and have enough fans to travel to a semi-final game in Miami, what are the odds they will be able to do it a week later in New Orleans? A school with a larger fan base (Ohio State) would have no problem selling out all its tickets to any bowl game and the neutral crowd would suddenly have a scarlet and gray tint to it. A bowl game is a one shot deal for a fan base to travel to a game; even smaller schools are able to travel one time for a once in a lifetime opportunity. The plus-one format would hurt the little schools and make it more difficult for a non-traditional power to win a championship. A plus one would screw over the little guy.

The Solution
I don’t want to complain without giving any solutions and there is an actual solution to this situation. Many people argue with me that College basketball has all the same issues and they manage to find a “true” champion with the NCAA Tournament. My counters are that the arenas are smaller and easier to sell out and most of the time the better teams get to travel to regional locations that makes it easy for fan bases. The NCAA tournament is actually the solution to the BCS playoff problem, what we need is a final four, a College Football Final Four.

What I am suggesting is an exact replica of the NCAA Basketball Final Four in a BCS bowl location. Take the top four teams from the final BCS poll ( right now that would be Alabama, Texas Tech, Texas and Florida) they will compete in the BCS Final Four, for this example the host bowl site will be the Orange Bowl. All four teams will compete on the same day on the same field with the same crowd in the stands. Number 1 would play number 4 and number 2 would match up against number 3 with the winners playing a week later in the in Miami. Fans would get two amazing football games at one time and just like the NCAA Basketball Final Four and fans would stay the entire time to see who their team is going to play in the championship game.

This solution eliminates the problems of travel for smaller fan bases since they will be staying in the same location for both games and most people stay in the bowl site for about a week for vacation. The tickets would be dispersed evenly between the four fan bases and it would limit the larger fan bases from being able to buy up all the tickets and seriously outnumber the smaller fan base if there was a Wake Forest vs. Ohio State situation. Most importantly, nothing changes in the regular season of college football. Every game matters and our regular season stays untouched.

The problem with this scenario is that it still hurts the non-BCS leagues, but that can be fixed by those schools deciding to play a real schedule instead of hiding behind their soft conferences and complaining. If Boise State, Ball State or Utah wanted a shot at playing for a national title they would be forced to beef up their schedule. Since this format would still be using the BCS and take only the top 4 teams schools would still be forced to win all their games and the smaller schools would get games against the big boys. Another positive is this solution does not stop the Boise State’s and Hawaii’s from getting to a BCS game since there are still three other big time bowls that need to be played.

The Bottom Line
The most important thing is the preservation of the regular season, but how amazing an atmosphere would it be if there were four fan bases, four marching bands in one stadium with four teams playing two games on the same day? Even fans of other teams would want to witness this event and the TV audiences would be amazing. The BCS games are not being diluted any further because the same amount of teams would still be needed. If the Orange Bowl is the host site of the Championship game, four teams would travel to Miami like they do currently and the six other BCS teams would play their games in the Rose, Sugar and Fiesta bowls. We have ten BCS teams now and this solution would still give us ten BCS teams.

Of course this is extremely unlikely, if for no other reason than money. Why would college football have two games in one stadium on the same day when they could split it up and sell twice as many tickets? Why would college football give up the chance to put two games on during prime time television and settle for one marquis game in an afternoon time slot? While I would love for this scenario to work out and it is the only one I find acceptable, it is unrealistic. The bottom line is that no matter what we get out of college football in the future not everyone will be happy.

Do we need a better way to find our College Football National Champion? Yes we do, but right now there is no way to make all parties happy and we are fortunate we get a 1 vs. 2 match up because that is better than we used to get. The BCS is not the enemy, obviously it is not perfect, but it is what has made college football more popular and it has been great for college football. I hope it sticks around for a while longer because the other options are not any better.

​

[SIZE=-1]I know everyone has their own playoff scenario, what is yours? What do you think of mine, can it be improved or is it a pipe dream? E-mail me [SIZE=-1] Brian Harbach[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]​

</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[RetroVK]

Well Obama wants a playoff and he believes in change and he has to change alot of minds and dammit the BCS is a good place to start.


Agreed the setup is the problem. No way the conferences relinquish the power (see money) they have over the setup as it is. If USC remains on the outside looking in I predict the PAC-10 will either seek out more participants or having a "conference championship" with the teams it has now. At some point the PAC-10 and BIG 11 have to wake up and smell the crystal ball.

Obama wanting a playoff gives me pause that i may be wrong in wanting one. He is so consistently wrong , that i have to consider that i am wrong in this instance.

 

[M.W.]

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.

1989.

 

[M.W.]

A PLAYOFF WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

Agree completely.

 

[cogenman]

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

It is broke!!!

If anybody thinks having a playoff system will take away from the regular season, your crazy. You'd have some crazy ratinigs and excitement. Like people are saying, this is a football country, we live and die football. That's why when the world series was going on on a monday night, nobody really gave a shit because football was on.

Majent, your a oklahoma guy right? If Texas was playing Missou this week, how would you feel about going to a playoff system? I'd bet you'd want it.

 

[Gandolf]

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!

Looking at this analysis I think the term "Mythical National Championship Game" would be easily replaced by "Mythical 4 Team National Championship Playoff". The level of subjectivity is merely expanded by two teams.

The only reasonably objective way to have a football playoff is to include all conference champions, but including so many non-BCS teams into the playoff format will hardly produce the excitement of the current system (think about how quickly you fill out the first round games in your March Madness Brackets) and will still probably leave out teams with legitimate claims (like Texas and Texas Tech this year).

 

[~Utah]

Worrying about 9th 10th and 11th teams that didnt get into the playoffs will be like worrying about the bubble teams that didnt get into the NCAA Tourny. We will talk about it for a day on how they got fucked over, maybe 2 days. Little bit of a different case because Texas fans will be talking about this till they die. Remember 2008? We had that great team and we didnt go to the national championship.

 

[RetroVK]

Looking at this analysis I think the term "Mythical National Championship Game" would be easily replaced by "Mythical 4 Team National Championship Playoff". The level of subjectivity is merely expanded by two teams.

The only reasonably objective way to have a football playoff is to include all conference champions, but including so many non-BCS teams into the playoff format will hardly produce the excitement of the current system (think about how quickly you fill out the first round games in your March Madness Brackets) and will still probably leave out teams with legitimate claims (like Texas and Texas Tech this year).

Could not agree more. It will be a mythical champion until all conference champions ( and therefore all teams save independents ) are eligible to be champion.

 

[O-State]

- 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)

Well last year after the bowls LSU, Georgia, USC, Kansas, West Virginia advance to a final four neutral site situation. Since we have an odd number MIssouri would go to face LSU the highest ranked team.

 

[RetroVK]

- 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)

Well last year after the bowls LSU, Georgia, USC, Kansas, West Virginia advance to a final four neutral site situation. Since we have an odd number MIssouri would go to face LSU the highest ranked team.

where is hawaii ?

 

[cogenman]

Worrying about 9th 10th and 11th teams that didnt get into the playoffs will be like worrying about the bubble teams that didnt get into the NCAA Tourny. We will talk about it for a day on how they got fucked over, maybe 2 days. Little bit of a different case because Texas fans will be talking about this till they die. Remember 2008? We had that great team and we didnt go to the national championship.

:shake:

 

[O-State]

where is hawaii ?

They got beat by Georgia remember

---I'm just saying using the bowl games to further evaluate teams and then go to a neutral site

 

[orange&white]

Who gives a damn about the 9th best team getting left out. Totally different then leaving out Texas this year or Auburn in '04 or Miami in 2000. Bogus argument imo.

 

[JumpOnBoard]

unless you are an undefeated Boise State or fan.

I agree the argument is sorta moot when discussing two loss teams...but when the team in question is undefeated, it at least would merit a discussion.

 

[orange&white]

1998 - You made my argument for me. tOSU loses at home to hot-and-cold, as you call them, Michigan St team. (tOSU was favored by 24 pts that day!) Unacceptable loss. FSU's loses at bowl team NC State in hostile environment.

1999 - V.Tech went 11-0 that regular season! WTF are you talking about???

2000 - Oklahoma went undefeated on the reg season and played the best runner-up available! Did you miss that season???

2001 - Oregon beat Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl, well after the reg season was over. Nebraska had to play them in Boulder. Big difference there.

2003 - I'll give you this one, but personally, I have NEVER had a problem with split national champions

2004 - USC and OU were the most impressive looking teams all season in terms of who they beat and by how much. The 2 best teams made the title game.

2005 - Hallelujah!!!

2006 - The 2 best teams made the title game, the best team won

2007 - see 2006

See posts like this are exactly why we need a playoff. Upsets are part of sports and there is no way you possibly know if Utah couldn't have beat OU or Auburn wouldn't of beat USC and OU. Just because you personally think they were the two best teams doesn't mean they are. I will never understand this line of thinking at all. Who wouldn't of wanted to see an undefeated underdog, an undefeated SEC champ, an undefeated Big XII champ, and what is thought of as one of the greatest teams of all time play in a playoff.

 

[RetroVK]

where is hawaii ?

They got beat by Georgia remember

---I'm just saying using the bowl games to further evaluate teams and then go to a neutral site

ahhh gotcha ... so utah in 2004 would be in final four.

 

[majent]

http://www.nationalchamps.net/2008/free/obama_plan.htm

 

[majent]

Some of you (ahem Horses) indicated that you believe a 4-team playoff would solve the problem. I believe this is very naive thinking, and have maintained that it would only quell a tiny amount of controversy, while opening up a new controversy over which teams get in the 4-teamer.

Here are the Top-10 in the BCS standings BEFORE the bowls. I believe using the bowls to determine the 4-playoff teams is a FARCE because bowls are about tie-ins and it would be totally unfair for Georgia '07 to sneak into the 4-team playoff after beating one of the worst BCS bowl participants EVER (Hawaii). USC getting Illinois in the Rose Bowl was not very fair either in assessing them after the bowls.

Assess the teams BEFORE the bowls, right when the regular season has completed.

Here was the Top-10 BEFORE the bowls, which would be the only semi-fair way to choose your Final 4:

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="stathead"><td>BCS Standings</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 1. Oklahoma 12-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 2. Florida 12-1</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 3. Texas 11-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 4. Alabama 12-1</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 5. USC 11-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 6. Utah 12-0</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 7. Texas Tech 11-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 8. Penn State 11-1</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 9. Boise State 12-0</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td>10. Ohio State 10-2</td></tr></tbody></table>
So if you just take the BCS Top 4, are you telling me it's fair to exclude USC, Utah, even Texas Tech and Penn State? A strong case can be made for all 4 of these teams to be included. USC obviously finished the season very strong. Utah was undefeated. TexTech's only loss was to the #1 team, OU. Penn State's only loss was to 8-4 Iowa (who became 9-4 after pounding S. Carolina but at selection time we wouldn't know that).

How about undefeated Boise State? The 9th ranked BCS team!

See what I mean? It becomes splitting hairs, JUST LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW, except in the current system, the regular season is hurt ZERO AMOUNT.

Keep things the way they are or go the Wetzel Yahoo plan which VegasKyle agrees with. You include 16 teams which gives you all 11 conference champions and 5 at-largers. Anything less than this is naive thinking. Trust me on this.

GOOD NIGHT NOW

 

[Aztec4Life]

I think a playoff system would be great, as long as it doesn't eliminate all of the Bowl Games.

 

[Joe Public]

Two things.

First, a playoff only works if it's a plus-three situation, not a plus-one.

You'd need to have a national semi-final weekend, then a championship.

Because you're never going to end up with just two teams for that plus-one. There's always going to be someone with a very valid argument that they should be there. This year would have been particularly bad because of Utah and USC.

If you did the plus-three thing then you'd do the bowls to get into the semi-finals, the semi-finals the next week, then the championship the week after that.

Problem is, to do that would screw the calendar all up.

Unless you wanted to do the semi-final games on New Year's Day with all the rest of the bowl games, or to cap off that weekend. But then again you have the problem of who gets into those games. Something the bowl games solve (Utah beats Alabama, Texas beats OSU, USC beats Penn St., etc.)

Second, personally, I don't care. The only reason I'd like a playoff is that there would be more games to potentially bet and more potentially good football to watch. But the uncertainty of the BCS, while laughably dumb, doesn't drive me up the wall like it does so many others.

College football, to me, has never seemed to have that certainty of a national champion, so I wonder why now people are so desperate for it. The goal is to go undefeated. If you do that, you had a truly great year. If you didn't, you still may be the best in college football, but it's going to be debatable. And, in the case of Utah, even if you do go undefeated it's going to be somewhat debatable.

 

[horses]

Some of you (ahem Horses) indicated that you believe a 4-team playoff would solve the problem. I believe this is very naive thinking, and have maintained that it would only quell a tiny amount of controversy, while opening up a new controversy over which teams get in the 4-teamer.

Here are the Top-10 in the BCS standings BEFORE the bowls. I believe using the bowls to determine the 4-playoff teams is a FARCE because bowls are about tie-ins and it would be totally unfair for Georgia '07 to sneak into the 4-team playoff after beating one of the worst BCS bowl participants EVER (Hawaii). USC getting Illinois in the Rose Bowl was not very fair either in assessing them after the bowls.

Assess the teams BEFORE the bowls, right when the regular season has completed.

I agree about assessing the teams prior to the bowl games; and yes, I advocated a 4-team playoff (and still do, though like JoeP mentions above, it isn't that big a deal to me either in the long run). Fortunately (for you Majentic) for the sake of this argument, this season (again, prior to bowls) would have been brutally difficult to narrow to four teams. I could take my shot right now with justification, and piss off as many people as I make happy. That being said, a 4-team playoff in most, if not all, other years would have reduced the controversy significantly (or left it the same at worse) compared to the existing system.

Regardless, I am NOT one of the people climbing the walls over the BCS; I love watching college football and I love handicapping college football and since I'm a San Diego St alum, I'll never have to worry about getting screwed out of playing in the MNC.

 

[TheGarfather]

Some of you (ahem Horses) indicated that you believe a 4-team playoff would solve the problem. I believe this is very naive thinking, and have maintained that it would only quell a tiny amount of controversy, while opening up a new controversy over which teams get in the 4-teamer.

Here are the Top-10 in the BCS standings BEFORE the bowls. I believe using the bowls to determine the 4-playoff teams is a FARCE because bowls are about tie-ins and it would be totally unfair for Georgia '07 to sneak into the 4-team playoff after beating one of the worst BCS bowl participants EVER (Hawaii). USC getting Illinois in the Rose Bowl was not very fair either in assessing them after the bowls.

Assess the teams BEFORE the bowls, right when the regular season has completed.

Here was the Top-10 BEFORE the bowls, which would be the only semi-fair way to choose your Final 4:

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="stathead"><td>BCS Standings</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 1. Oklahoma 12-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 2. Florida 12-1</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 3. Texas 11-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 4. Alabama 12-1</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 5. USC 11-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 6. Utah 12-0</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 7. Texas Tech 11-1</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td> 8. Penn State 11-1</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td> 9. Boise State 12-0</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td>10. Ohio State 10-2</td></tr></tbody></table>
So if you just take the BCS Top 4, are you telling me it's fair to exclude USC, Utah, even Texas Tech and Penn State? A strong case can be made for all 4 of these teams to be included. USC obviously finished the season very strong. Utah was undefeated. TexTech's only loss was to the #1 team, OU. Penn State's only loss was to 8-4 Iowa (who became 9-4 after pounding S. Carolina but at selection time we wouldn't know that).

How about undefeated Boise State? The 9th ranked BCS team!

See what I mean? It becomes splitting hairs, JUST LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW, except in the current system, the regular season is hurt ZERO AMOUNT.

Keep things the way they are or go the Wetzel Yahoo plan which VegasKyle agrees with. You include 16 teams which gives you all 11 conference champions and 5 at-largers. Anything less than this is naive thinking. Trust me on this.

GOOD NIGHT NOW

That is why it needs to be 8. And the Penn State/Boise State cut-off would have been just about perfect as the Broncos were not a contender while PSU could have been.

 

[Br@ssknux]

Two things.

First, a playoff only works if it's a plus-three situation, not a plus-one.

You'd need to have a national semi-final weekend, then a championship.

Because you're never going to end up with just two teams for that plus-one. There's always going to be someone with a very valid argument that they should be there. This year would have been particularly bad because of Utah and USC.

If you did the plus-three thing then you'd do the bowls to get into the semi-finals, the semi-finals the next week, then the championship the week after that.

Problem is, to do that would screw the calendar all up.

Unless you wanted to do the semi-final games on New Year's Day with all the rest of the bowl games, or to cap off that weekend. But then again you have the problem of who gets into those games. Something the bowl games solve (Utah beats Alabama, Texas beats OSU, USC beats Penn St., etc.)

Second, personally, I don't care. The only reason I'd like a playoff is that there would be more games to potentially bet and more potentially good football to watch. But the uncertainty of the BCS, while laughably dumb, doesn't drive me up the wall like it does so many others.

College football, to me, has never seemed to have that certainty of a national champion, so I wonder why now people are so desperate for it. The goal is to go undefeated. If you do that, you had a truly great year. If you didn't, you still may be the best in college football, but it's going to be debatable. And, in the case of Utah, even if you do go undefeated it's going to be somewhat debatable.

Could be, but one of my biggest fears from a betting standpoint is that we'll have more intangibles to worry about if a "Week 16/17" scenario rears it's ugly head like it does in the NFL. I want no part of trying to determine what teams will be resting their players if they are playing a game that has no bearing of whether they will be in a playoff or not. For example, if there was a playoff this year, would Bama have even shown up for the SEC title game? We didn't have any worries about extraneous crap like that as it was this year, as that game was in effect a national semi-final. If we had a playoff, though, we'd be dealing with that crap, I would think.

 

[majent]

That is why it needs to be 8. And the Penn State/Boise State cut-off would have been just about perfect as the Broncos were not a contender while PSU could have been.

Sorry Gar, can't let you get away with this statement.

You are determining, yourself, that Boise State is "not a contender while PSU could have been".

How do you know?

Boise State finished the reg season 12-0 and beat 5 bowl teams. They beat Oregon in Eugene in a gm that was nowhere close to the 37-32 final score. They destroyed just about everyone in their conference except for bowl team Nevada whom they beat on the road by 7. They lost to TCU, a 10-2 reg season team, by just 1 pt on a neutral field. But you are determining that they are "not a contender while PSU could have been"?

Isn't the point of the playoff you so loudly scream for to take away these determinations and let it be decided on the field?

No way, absolutely no way in my mind, would Boise State not be deserving of a spot in an 8-team playoff after finishing 12-0 and beating 5, count 'em 5, bowl teams.

And here's where the "new controversy" I always speak about, comes in. Excluding a BCS conference school who finished 11-1 or 10-2 just so they could put Boise St in there would cause more controversy.

And around and around we go.

Someone else stated in the thread that he almost wanted the playoff system implemented so everyone who screams for one would see how wrong they are and would want the old system back. I'm there right now. Bring in the playoff so all of you who scream for it can see how much it hurts the reg season. Get what you wish for, then cry for the old ways. That's exactly how it would be.