Interesting BCS column: Brad Edwards, ESPN

[majent]

It's time to settle this once and for all.
It started when Nebraska reached the BCS Championship Game in 2001 without winning the Big 12 North.
And it escalated in 2003, when Oklahoma reached the BCS Championship Game after losing by four touchdowns in the Big 12 title tilt.

[+] Enlarge
Kenny Felt/Icon SMI
Would you like to see the No. 1 BCS squad left out of the title game?


Ever since that time, there have been cries from media and fans alike that something should be done to make sure this never happens again. Yet, BCS administrators have refused to take that step.
So if you've ever wondered why a team is still eligible to play for the national championship even if it doesn't even win its conference ... well, here you go.
Let's play the ever-popular game of BCS hypotheticals.
Now, these aren't crazy, worst-case-scenario hypotheticals. None of these requires a team to lose as an overwhelming favorite.
• Oklahoma beats Texas Tech and Oklahoma State and wins the three-way tie in the Big 12 South, then loses to Missouri in the Big 12 title game. Missouri (11-2) is the Big 12 champion.
• Florida loses at Florida State, then wins a close game against Alabama. Florida (11-2) is the SEC champion.
• Oregon State beats Arizona and Oregon to win the Pac-10 title with a 9-3 overall record. USC also wins out to finish 11-1.
• Penn State beats Michigan State to win the Big Ten title with an 11-1 record.
• Utah beats BYU and wins the Mountain West with a 12-0 record.
If all of this happened, my best guess is that the final BCS standings would have a top 3 of No. 1 Texas, No. 2 USC and No. 3 Texas Tech. And it's possible Alabama could be ranked No. 4.
But if a rule existed that allowed only conference champions to play for the BCS title, then none of those four teams would be eligible to compete for the ultimate prize. In this scenario, the championship game would likely be played between Penn State (11-1) and Florida (11-2), while Missouri (11-2) and Utah (12-0) would also have arguments to be included.
Some might ask why USC, as Pac-10 co-champion, would not be considered eligible. The explanation is simple: If the Big 12, SEC and ACC can have only one champion because of a title game, then the other conferences can't have two or three champions. Tiebreakers would have to be used to break ties for a conference title when those situations occurred. (Thus, Oregon State would be the Pac-10 champion based on its victory over USC.)
So, anyone who would feel fulfilled by watching No. 5 play No. 6 for the national championship can keep demanding that teams be required to win their conference titles to earn a spot on the BCS big stage.
<hr> Following a weekend with no losses by the top 15 teams in the BCS standings, there were no significant changes in the national title hunt. We now await the latest Big 12 game of the year, Saturday's showdown in Norman between No. 2 Texas Tech and No. 5 Oklahoma (ABC, 8 ET). Among the minor developments from last weekend, Ohio State's win at Illinois probably ended any realistic chance that two non-BCS-conference teams could play in this season's BCS games, so the focus on that front now turns to Saturday's BYU-Utah showdown.
If the Utes win, they will receive one of the four at-large bids to the BCS, although that wouldn't become official until Dec. 7. If BYU wins, that bid will be Boise State's to lose, starting with Saturday's game at Nevada. If Boise also loses ... tune in next week for the full report.
Brad Edwards is a college football researcher at ESPN. His Road to the BCS appears weekly during the season.

 

[RetroVK]

teams should be required to win their conference in order to play for a national title

 

[TheGarfather]

Majent, if you are a smart guy - which I think you are - then I probably don't even need to point out that a playoff solves all of this silly business. You'll come around.

 

[Kristin]

teams should be required to win their conference in order to play for a national title

Then it's only fair to require all BCS conferences to play a conference champs game. Let's have all or none.

I'm an Ohio State fan and at the very least, it's beyond absurd that Big 10 teams don't play everyone in-conference every year.

 

[Aztec4Life]

College football NEEDS the bowl games...this much I know. I'm all for a playoff system, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the bowl games.

 

[O-State]

BCS is fine.

Incorporate BCS's as the playoff tournament.

IMO I really believe there should not be a set "8 team or 4 team or whatever playoff"

Needs to be flexible given each year's circumstances

If 4 1 losses, they play in 2 BCS bowls and then meet in the championship, the advancees. If 2 undefefeated nothing.

---Utah and Ball State I would play them in a bowl game. ---- An early bowl, so winner can play in BCS and have weeks to prepar. Hype this bowl game up though and give it pageantry.

 

[RetroVK]

Any playoff has to include the conference winner of every conference , to include the sunbelt , cusa , wac , mac and mwc.

no team that loses its own conference should get a playoff spot over a conference winner. Decide it on the field , not by just saying utah is not good enough or saying that boise st is not good enough or saying that utah state is not good enough. it should be proven out on the field. That is what sport is all about.

see usa hockey defeat russia hockey
see villanova over georgetown
see ncstate over houston
see giants over patriots
see cards world series win a couple years ago
see annie duke , jamie gold and many other bracelet winners
see buster douglas

 

[majent]

Majent, if you are a smart guy - which I think you are - then I probably don't even need to point out that a playoff solves all of this silly business. You'll come around.

Gar, I respect your playoff stance not because you want a playoff, but because you outlined your reasons very nicely. In a perfect world, a playoff would work out nicely, but college football is anything but a perfect world. We cannot compare it to any other sport like baseball, basketball, et al, because of the physicality of football and the rest the players need between games and the max number they can play. We can only compare CFB to the NFL, because they are both football, and this is an unfair comparison because the NFL is symmetrical -- 32 teams. BTW, go ask 50 football fans who like both pro and college and ask them what's more exciting, Saturday or Sunday. 45+ will say Saturday, and there are many reasons for this, one of which is that there is NO playoff, so the reg season matters so much more.

I think it's important to really backfit any playoff ideas anyone has, and see how it would have worked out in other years. Last yr, anything short of an 8 team playoff would have been a mess. A plus-one or a 4-teamer would have been huge, huge controversy, because there were 6 or 7 teams that looked nearly identical on paper, including Georgia, WVA, Mizzu, USC, etc.

Being as passionate about CFB as I am, I have thought about different playoff scenarios, ad nauseum, and have backfitted them to previous yrs.
In my research, I have found that *most years*, the plus one, 4-teamer, and 8-teamer, would have created huge, huge controversy because so many teams past the top 1, 2 or 3 would have looked so similar on paper, how do you separate them and narrow down the field?

We're talking 120 Division 1-A teams belonging to 6 BCS conferences, 5 "mid-major" conferences, for a nice uneven, asymmetrical number of 11.

The best playoff idea I have ever read about is Yahoo Sports writer Scott Wetzel's idea, but it requires 16 teams. All 11 conference champs + 5 at larges. Good luck trying to separate 5 at-larges from a pool of 12-15 at-larges that will have strikingly similar resumes'.

I'm telling you, and I will take this to the grave with me: All a playoff will do is quell a tiny bit of controversy while creating another swirl of controversy over the selection process. This minor plus-minus chance of eliminating controversy will have a major, major negative impact on the late season regular season games which are mostly rivalry games.

In 2006, USC had the PAC-10 wrapped up when they went into the UCLA game. The reason the game was exciting and dramatic is because USC had to win, absolutely had to win, to get to the BCS title game. If we had a playoff, they would have been in. Who cares if you're a 1 seed or a 2 seed? They would have rested their starters and the game would have been meaningless. The powers-that-be and the coaches and presidents of college football, while having other agendas, are aware of the aforementioned argument I just made.

In 2007, exact situation applied with WVA. They had wrapped up the Big East but had to beat Pittsburgh. Same score of 13-9 in the game as the USC-UCLA game the year before!

These are just 2 examples.

The easiest thing to do is for the masses to scream for a playoff. As a guy who has appreciated EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY regular season Saturday for 23 straight yrs (340 some odd straight Fall saturdays), I can tell you that the college football regular season is the most incredible, most compelling, most meaningful reg season in all of sports -- I don't want that to change and I KNOW for a fact that it will if there's any type of playoff.

(No one could care less about the NCAA Basketball reg season unless it's Duke v. North Carolina. The reason there are so many great rivalries in college football -- I can name like 10 right off the top of my head -- is because NO TEAM RESTS STARTERS IN THE RIVALRY in anticipation of going to a playoff. You play your arse off every Saturday because 1 loss can ruin your season).

Project things out, and you'll see that my opinions are founded on what I see of other reg seasons in sports.........

:shake:

 

[JPicks]

BCS is fine.

Incorporate BCS's as the playoff tournament.

IMO I really believe there should not be a set "8 team or 4 team or whatever playoff"

Needs to be flexible given each year's circumstances

If 4 1 losses, they play in 2 BCS bowls and then meet in the championship, the advancees. If 2 undefefeated nothing.

---Utah and Ball State I would play them in a bowl game. ---- An early bowl, so winner can play in BCS and have weeks to prepar. Hype this bowl game up though and give it pageantry.

I think you probably mean Utah and Boise State but either way I say screw that idea. Why do they have to have a play in game. How about the ACC and the Big East have a play in game as they're both shitty ass conferences. ACC is a solid 1-7 in their last 8 BCS games and nobody says shit about it. Non BCS teams are 2-1 and the second Hawaii gets thumped, as we all knew they would, the whole world thinks non BCS teams are undeserving.

 

[golferjoe]

If football players are limited to a set number of games, how do Div 2 and 3 programs manage to let their players participate in a playoff system? And the schooling is certainly more intense. There is no lobbying for the football team by the coaches.

The argument that it would ruin the regular season is KoolAid that is being distributed from the Pac10 and Big 10 conferences who love their tie in with the Rose Bowl. Does the regular season in the NFL mean nothing? Your logic tells me that it doesn't. But it does. It determines which teams have navigated through their season and performed the best. Isn't that what we want from College football, to determine on the field who is best? Is NFL regular season attendance suffering due to their playoff system? Are the ratings for the NFL so far down in the regular season that Versus is going to be the only channel bidding for them? I think not.

Times change. Certainly college football has changed as well. The SEC, Big 12 have added Championship games. This was an additional game added in the last 15 years. If we are worried about number of games, eliminate teams playing Div 2 schools. This move alone would have saved many BCS teams at least 1 game this year. PSU, Texas Tech 2, Florida State 2, Florida 2, Alabama 4 (Miss State, and Auburn count this year)

The real reason for popularity of College football is America's love for the game of football. The INCREASED coverage from the major networks as well as ESPN. We have regional games. We have the ability to gather food and beer and not move for 12 hours many Saturdays and watch football.

Do you remember College Football Saturday on ABC? That was the only channel. 1 game. East Coast and West Coast had their games. That's it. Chevrolet donating 1000 to the player of the game. Prudential being a Major sponsor. A Piece of the Rock.

I hopefully look forward to the day when the true National Champion is decided on the field of battle.

 

[majent]

If football players are limited to a set number of games, how do Div 2 and 3 programs manage to let their players participate in a playoff system? And the schooling is certainly more intense. There is no lobbying for the football team by the coaches.

The argument that it would ruin the regular season is KoolAid that is being distributed from the Pac10 and Big 10 conferences who love their tie in with the Rose Bowl. Does the regular season in the NFL mean nothing? Your logic tells me that it doesn't. But it does. It determines which teams have navigated through their season and performed the best. Isn't that what we want from College football, to determine on the field who is best? Is NFL regular season attendance suffering due to their playoff system? Are the ratings for the NFL so far down in the regular season that Versus is going to be the only channel bidding for them? I think not.

Times change. Certainly college football has changed as well. The SEC, Big 12 have added Championship games. This was an additional game added in the last 15 years. If we are worried about number of games, eliminate teams playing Div 2 schools. This move alone would have saved many BCS teams at least 1 game this year. PSU, Texas Tech 2, Florida State 2, Florida 2, Alabama 4 (Miss State, and Auburn count this year)

The real reason for popularity of College football is America's love for the game of football. The INCREASED coverage from the major networks as well as ESPN. We have regional games. We have the ability to gather food and beer and not move for 12 hours many Saturdays and watch football.

Do you remember College Football Saturday on ABC? That was the only channel. 1 game. East Coast and West Coast had their games. That's it. Chevrolet donating 1000 to the player of the game. Prudential being a Major sponsor. A Piece of the Rock.

I hopefully look forward to the day when the true National Champion is decided on the field of battle.

FCS, formerly D-1AA, plays fewer regular season games, and they make up the difference with the playoff. The reason FCS has a playoff is because no one gives a crap about their regular season.

The FBS, OTOH, gets tons of revenue from the reg season because people actually care about it.

BTW, ESPN bid so much for the next BCS bowl contract that Fox just dropped out of the running.

CFB attendance and revenue grows every year. Show me an industry and/or a company that would want to change their structure if they are growing significantly in revenue every year.

And no, the argument that a playoff would bring in even more money is a total fallacy. Studies have shown that when the entire pool of cash gets divided up, it would amount to less than an FBS team scheduling one more home game and beating up on a patsy for a huge payday.

 

[majent]

I hopefully look forward to the day when the true National Champion is decided on the field of battle.

Last yr, on the field of battle, LSU got the nod over 4 other 2-loss teams because they were the most impressive of the 5 teams ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE.

Tune in this Saturday for yet another playoff game which kicks off on ABC at 5 pm PST in Norman

 

[golferjoe]

Does the NFL regular season mean nothing? I missed that answer. Or was that conveniently overlooked because you can't refute it.

Or is the real reason for the lack of a playoff the MONEY. We know it is. The pie would have to get sliced into more pieces. That's why the Big 10 and Pac 10 refuse to give up their tie in. It's not the "Regular Season is so sacred that we must not dilute it". That's the Company BS line which you have obviously bought into.

Oh and your argument that the Div 2 play less games. Learn the game.
Div 2 schools play 11 games. Which up until about 10 years ago was the MAXIMUM number of games allowed by Div 1. You see, there is room for change if the money tree grows.

 

[golferjoe]

Here's the schdule for those Fordham Rams 11 games total of 15 games if they were to make it to the championship game. Same number as the HOLY FBS

<TABLE class="tablehead teamTop colOne" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR class=colhead><TD width="15%">DATE</TD><TD width="45%">OPPONENT</TD><TD align=middle width="20%">W-L (CONF)</TD><TD align=right width="20%">RESULT</TD></TR><TR class=oddrow><TD>9/06</TD><TD align=left>Rhode Island</TD><TD align=middle>1-0 (0-0)</TD><TD align=right>W 16-0</TD><TR class=evenrow><TD>9/13</TD><TD align=left>@ Dayton</TD><TD align=middle>1-1 (0-0)</TD><TD align=right>L 23-20</TD><TR class=oddrow><TD>9/20</TD><TD align=left>@ Columbia</TD><TD align=middle>2-1 (0-0)</TD><TD align=right>W 29-22</TD><TR class=evenrow><TD>9/27</TD><TD align=left>Colgate</TD><TD align=middle>2-2 (0-1)</TD><TD align=right>L 31-24</TD><TR class=oddrow><TD>10/11</TD><TD align=left>@ Lehigh</TD><TD align=middle>2-3 (0-2)</TD><TD align=right>L 45-24</TD><TR class=evenrow><TD>10/18</TD><TD align=left>Yale</TD><TD align=middle>3-3 (0-2)</TD><TD align=right>W 12-10</TD><TR class=oddrow><TD>10/25</TD><TD align=left>Lafayette</TD><TD align=middle>3-4 (0-3)</TD><TD align=right>L 48-13</TD><TR class=evenrow><TD>11/01</TD><TD align=left>Marist</TD><TD align=middle>4-4 (0-3)</TD><TD align=right>W 45-21</TD><TR class=oddrow><TD>11/08</TD><TD align=left>@ Holy Cross</TD><TD align=middle>4-5 (0-4)</TD><TD align=right>L 38-17</TD><TR class=evenrow><TD>11/15</TD><TD align=left>Georgetown</TD><TD align=middle>5-5 (1-4)</TD><TD align=right>W 17-0</TD><TR class=colhead><TD width="15%">DATE</TD><TD width="45%">OPPONENT</TD><TD align=middle width="20%">TV</TD><TD align=right width="20%">TIME (ET)</TD></TR><TR class=oddrow><TD>11/22</TD><TD align=left>@ Bucknell</TD><TD align=middle></TD><TD align=right>1:00 PM</TD><TR><TD style="BACKGROUND: #dfdfce" colSpan=4>Complete Team Schedule</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[majent]

Does the NFL regular season mean nothing? I missed that answer. Or was that conveniently overlooked because you can't refute it.

The final 2-3 weeks of the NFL reg season are essentially meaningless for the top teams in each conference. 2-3 wks of the CFB reg season being meaningless would kill CFB, and would kill the rivalries which are best played during the last few wks of November, just like they are currently scheduled.

Or is the real reason for the lack of a playoff the MONEY. We know it is. The pie would have to get sliced into more pieces. That's why the Big 10 and Pac 10 refuse to give up their tie in. It's not the "Regular Season is so sacred that we must not dilute it". That's the Company BS line which you have obviously bought into.

This is part of the reason, no doubt, but not the sole reason. There are many other reasons. I don't really buy into anything -- at this point in my life, at my age and having spent 2/3 of my life watching the game, I can make my own decisions about what I want, not what CFB or other fans want.

Oh and your argument that the Div 2 play less games. Learn the game. Div 2 schools play 11 games. Which up until about 10 years ago was the MAXIMUM number of games allowed by Div 1. You see, there is room for change if the money tree grows.

Well, if they play 11 they are still one game short of the FBS which now all play 12. I don't follow FCS much (who the hell does), but I have glanced at final reg season records in the past few yrs and could have sworn I saw teams who only played 10 games.

 

[majent]

I just opened up my 2008 Phil Steele's PAC-10 edition and there are several teams, not all the teams, but several from the FCS (formerly D-1AA) who only played 10 games in 04, 05, 06, or 07. Many of them only played 10 games in 2 or more of the yrs I mentioned. Go look it up if you have the mag.

Why is this?

 

[bull]

FCS, formerly D-1AA, plays fewer regular season games, and they make up the difference with the playoff. The reason FCS has a playoff is because no one gives a crap about their regular season.

pure bulllshit and dead wrong on both counts

Appy State is 10-1 with one game left against West Carolina. Check any other of the contenders and you will see 12 games. KNow what your facts are before you post something like this.

 

[golferjoe]

i agree that the final weeks of the season for some teams are meaningless in the NFL. The Patriots didn't need to play their starters the entire game. The Cardinals certainly won't need to play the starters from about week 12 on. But they will. They'll play. This is no different from Div 1 schools playing Div 2

Are you going to watch Florida play the Citadel this weekend? Didn't think so. Is Urban Meyer going to play his starters the entire game this week? Didn't think so.
Were you tuned in for the Alabama vs.W Kentucky and Arkansas State matchups? The starters didn't play the entire game in either one.

The BCS has marketed their viewpoint. You have bought what they are selling. I haven't.

We'll agree to disagree.

Div 2 and 3 play full schedules. The lower tier small conference schools limit their schedules to a geographical area. They do not have the funding or resources to allow for intersectional scheduling.

You really should get out and watch a Div2 or 3 game in person. Especially the playoffs. The games are hotly contested. The fans are over the top. They are the dedicated die hards. The students who travel to support their team. They have original chants. Like "Safety School" when playing a school with lower academic standards. IE A school that you apply to in case you don't get accepted by your first choice. It's great. A wonderful atmosphere.

 

[majent]

FCS, formerly D-1AA, plays fewer regular season games, and they make up the difference with the playoff. The reason FCS has a playoff is because no one gives a crap about their regular season.

pure bulllshit and dead wrong on both counts

Appy State is 10-1 with one game left against West Carolina. Check any other of the contenders and you will see 12 games. KNow what your facts are before you post something like this.

I have my Phil Steele's PAC-10 preview which lists the records the past 4 yrs of every D-1AA team in the country. Some D-II and D-III are listed in there also. I stand by what I said, because the mag supports it: *Most* non D-1A teams in the country played 10 games during 2 of the past 4 yrs or more.

As Golferjoe mentioned, it must be because of travel costs. Teams like App St have now upgraded to 11 or 12 games, but that was not the case just a few yrs ago.

If you don't believe me and don't have the mag, just google it and you'll see the answer.

 

[majent]

You really should get out and watch a Div2 or 3 game in person. Especially the playoffs. The games are hotly contested. The fans are over the top. They are the dedicated die hards. The students who travel to support their team. They have original chants. Like "Safety School" when playing a school with lower academic standards. IE A school that you apply to in case you don't get accepted by your first choice. It's great. A wonderful atmosphere.

I may not watch the reg season FCS games because most are not televised, obviously, but I do watch whenever App St is on and when early to mid December rolls around, I will be tuning in to get my football fix 'cause after Dec 6th I will slip into a mild "I miss CFB" depression, LOL.

FCS needs a playoff because their reg season revenue is very low. FBS does not need one because the reg season revenue is very high. And besides, when FCS is having their nice little playoff, FCS students are studying for finals which no doubt occur in mid-December

Good discussion, guys.

 

[golferjoe]

FCS has a playoff because every major sport in college with the EXCEPTION of Div 1 football has a playoff, not for revenue purposes. In fact the cost of playing many of these games exceed gate revenue. They play for the love of the game and to determine who is the CHAMPION.

Finals are scattered throughout the landscape. Some schools are on Trimesters Please don't hide behind the school work angle. 90% of the college graduates in the NFL couldn't spell DEGREE if they were given all the letters in a box.

 

[orangemonk]

Does a bowl win really mean anything? Rose Bowl Champs? great. Its supposed to mean a lot but in reality does it really justify finishing your season 11-1 and being left out of the national title game because of a flawed computer system? College football uses the BCS for money only. A playoff system would be far superior in nearly every way except dollar values right now. If the same amount of money was made using a playoff system and a BCS system do you really think we would still have the BCS right now?

 

[majent]

Does a bowl win really mean anything? Rose Bowl Champs? great. Its supposed to mean a lot but in reality does it really justify finishing your season 11-1 and being left out of the national title game because of a flawed computer system? College football uses the BCS for money only. A playoff system would be far superior in nearly every way except dollar values right now. If the same amount of money was made using a playoff system and a BCS system do you really think we would still have the BCS right now?

Good question. A loaded question, though, with complex answers and ways to break it down.

money in sports = popularity which comes from money made at the gate, concessions, visitors to a bowl city, TV revenue, etc,

If you want to see a playoff, you will need to organize a multi-million person boycott of saturday reg season college football games both on TV and in person, and the same with bowl boycotts.

Obviously, if the money is pouring into conferences at the increasing rate it is each year, *something* is right about college football and its popularity in 2008.

The fans need to revolt if they want a playoff. Stop going to games and stop watching them on TV. That will open the eyes of the powers-that-be.

You think any kind of significant boycott will happen?

Not a chance. The product is too good as it is and people will not organize and boycott. Won't happen, so the playoff decision is up to the powers-that-be and I think it's clear they've shown what they want.

 

[orangemonk]

i could be wrong but i think most of the money we are looking at here is corporate sponsorships of bowl games. I would think money would pour in even more at the gates and concessions of playoff games.

 

[golferjoe]

So Majent, if the college football season is essentially one giant playoff system, how do you defend the selection of Oklahoma over Texas? Doesn't EVERY game matter?

Or do only CERTAIN games matter when they defend or promote your point of view?

But I see you post in other threads that Oklahoma was the "correct" choice.

Please 'splain it to me. Because if we are to drink the Kool Aid that "every week is a playoff" there is NO possible way that Oklahoma can be ahead of Texas. NONE

So which side are you supporting this week?

 

[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>

 

[golferjoe]

Just answer the QUESTION that I posed. You posted that you are a staunch defender of the current system. YOU = Majent Majent = Harbach? If so, then your article is a start but not an answer to your earlier argument defending the "sanctimony" of the regular season when in the Texas v Oklahoma case it was blatantly disregarded.

 

[RetroVK]

I love how people want the "smaller" conferences to beef up their schedule when the bcs conference schools refuse to do Home-and-Home series with them. Then when the smaller schools have to travel and play road games at the bcs schools , the bcs schools point to their record vs the smaller schools. So stupid.

A playoff needs to have the conference winners. Saying that the SEC is better than Ballst should not be good enough , even if true.

 

[JPicks]

I love how people want the "smaller" conferences to beef up their schedule when the bcs conference schools refuse to do Home-and-Home series with them. Then when the smaller schools have to travel and play road games at the bcs schools , the bcs schools point to their record vs the smaller schools. So stupid.

A playoff needs to have the conference winners. Saying that the SEC is better than Ballst should not be good enough , even if true.

:shake:

Pretty sure that home and home didn't work out very well for UCLA last year when they came to Utah ranked 11th. Matter of fact Utah is 10-0 vs BCS school at home or @neutral venues since 2002. There is a reason that most BCS schools don't want to do home and homes and it's not all about money.

 

[O-State]

I am a strong believer that the regular season is vitally important and what makes college football unique and the bowls are special

But I believe change is needed

---Fiinal four scenario is an excellent idea. BUT I am telling you the questions about who gets into the playoff will be just as bad. You HAVE GOT to look at that. Oklahoma or TExas would still be an issue

---IMO play the BCS games out and THEN pick the 4 best teams. I believe it will be easier to identify the best teams at that point in time. Do not schedule BCS games with matchups in mind to separate teams, it should work itself out on it's own it always does. Unless their is a high amount of 1 loss teams and potentially they could all win their BCS games, then matchup bowl games that way.

Does not always have to be 4. Could be top 2 teams, top 3 teams, give one team a bye, etc.

----The regular season in college football, it just is not enough to determine the best teams all the time. So however long it takes to get a better sample size needs to take place, however, that time period should be as short as possible and depend on the year only on a case by case basis don't need to if don't have to.

Also institued EVERY BCS conference should be required to play another BCS conference school from a different BCS conference EVERY YEAR. And must schedule home and away's with non-BCS schools and have to rotate teams you schedule.

---IF regular season is a playoff, we need to institute some things so we can idenify a winner, right now the test is too easy.

---Some more regular season "scheduling laws" would make the test more difficult, give accurate comparision's betwen conferences, and hell, we will not be stuck with so many teams vying at the end of the year.

Shred the pretenders during the regular season and the strong will survive

If bowl's needed to further identify top 2 or 4 teams then use that and carry if over to a final four or something

 

[MrMulligan]

If football players are limited to a set number of games, how do Div 2 and 3 programs manage to let their players participate in a playoff system? And the schooling is certainly more intense. There is no lobbying for the football team by the coaches.

The argument that it would ruin the regular season is KoolAid that is being distributed from the Pac10 and Big 10 conferences who love their tie in with the Rose Bowl. Does the regular season in the NFL mean nothing? Your logic tells me that it doesn't. But it does. It determines which teams have navigated through their season and performed the best. Isn't that what we want from College football, to determine on the field who is best? Is NFL regular season attendance suffering due to their playoff system? Are the ratings for the NFL so far down in the regular season that Versus is going to be the only channel bidding for them? I think not.

Times change. Certainly college football has changed as well. The SEC, Big 12 have added Championship games. This was an additional game added in the last 15 years. If we are worried about number of games, eliminate teams playing Div 2 schools. This move alone would have saved many BCS teams at least 1 game this year. PSU, Texas Tech 2, Florida State 2, Florida 2, Alabama 4 (Miss State, and Auburn count this year)

The real reason for popularity of College football is America's love for the game of football. The INCREASED coverage from the major networks as well as ESPN. We have regional games. We have the ability to gather food and beer and not move for 12 hours many Saturdays and watch football.

Do you remember College Football Saturday on ABC? That was the only channel. 1 game. East Coast and West Coast had their games. That's it. Chevrolet donating 1000 to the player of the game. Prudential being a Major sponsor. A Piece of the Rock.

I hopefully look forward to the day when the true National Champion is decided on the field of battle.

:cheers:

 

[SHSUHorn]

So Majent, if the college football season is essentially one giant playoff system, how do you defend the selection of Oklahoma over Texas? Doesn't EVERY game matter?

Or do only CERTAIN games matter when they defend or promote your point of view?

But I see you post in other threads that Oklahoma was the "correct" choice.

Please 'splain it to me. Because if we are to drink the Kool Aid that "every week is a playoff" there is NO possible way that Oklahoma can be ahead of Texas. NONE

So which side are you supporting this week?

:36_19_2:

 

[majent]

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