Think about it this way - we are debating on who should play and be national champion based on performance. Doesn't this seem a little messed up? I would much rather focus on the team that gets into the playoffs as a number 8, 16 or 32 rated team and let the ones in the playoff determine who is the best. You eliminate the arguments on if someone is punished for losing early or late in the season. You have to admit Michigan staying number two is not what typically happens. Are they the second best team - my opinion is yes they are BUT what do Florida, USC and other teams like Arkansas and Boise State think? Nobody is giving Boise State a chance if they played OSU or Michigan but all they want is a chance to prove it - win or lose they want to compete and have the chance to see if they can. Right now they are the only ones who believe - why should they not get their chance?

 

The BCS is not good at all.

Think about it this way - we are debating on who should play and be national champion based on performance. Doesn't this seem a little messed up? I would much rather focus on the team that gets into the playoffs as a number 8, 16 or 32 rated team and let the ones in the playoff determine who is the best. You eliminate the arguments on if someone is punished for losing early or late in the season. You have to admit Michigan staying number two is not what typically happens. Are they the second best team - my opinion is yes they are BUT what do Florida, USC and other teams like Arkansas and Boise State think? Nobody is giving Boise State a chance if they played OSU or Michigan but all they want is a chance to prove it - win or lose they want to compete and have the chance to see if they can. Right now they are the only ones who believe - why should they not get their chance?

 

The BCS is not good at all.

What you say about Boise State is the BCS's biggest flaw. Do I think that Boise State has any shot of beating any of the teams in the championship game discussion, NO. Football is such a different game than basketball and I doubt we would ever see any cinderella's like we do in basketball. But it sure would be fun, if in the highly unlikely instance it did happen. 2004 is a prime example of what could've been with Utah finishing the season unbeaten and defeating a BSC team in a BSC bowl.

I agree that Boise State has no realistic chance but if we already eliminate their chance at the big game then really what is the point in playing a season. I know conference championships are nice and every team should strive for them but every athlete no matter the sport or level want to compete against the best. They want to see if they can compete and possibly pull the upset. I also agree that upsets are more rare in football because it is a different game but they do happen.

 

In basketball there has never been a number 16 beat a number 1 and probably never will but at least they got the chance. That is all everyone in sports wants is a chance but we have people who are not playing the game saying "thanks for playing the game but we don't think you can play so you don't get to but here is a small (very small) percentage of the money. It will help you pay bills but to build up to our level well we can't take that chance. If you guys get as good as we are we will lose that money. Sorry but it can't happen"

I agree that Boise State has no realistic chance but if we already eliminate their chance at the big game then really what is the point in playing a season. I know conference championships are nice and every team should strive for them but every athlete no matter the sport or level want to compete against the best. They want to see if they can compete and possibly pull the upset. I also agree that upsets are more rare in football because it is a different game but they do happen.

 

In basketball there has never been a number 16 beat a number 1 and probably never will but at least they got the chance. That is all everyone in sports wants is a chance but we have people who are not playing the game saying "thanks for playing the game but we don't think you can play so you don't get to but here is a small (very small) percentage of the money. It will help you pay bills but to build up to our level well we can't take that chance. If you guys get as good as we are we will lose that money. Sorry but it can't happen"

If the people who seed the NCAA tourny keep putting Kansas as a one seed we might get to see it one day.:devil:

 

I'm in agreement with you though. I think they deserve their chance. But right now we have to play the rules of the game and that is to have the two best teams in the country in one game. So unfortunately Boise State is out and rightfully so.

I posted this as a thread awhile back, before it starting shaping up with all the one loss teams. Keep the bowl games and use them as playoffs. 1 vs 32 with #1 being allowed to play closest to home ,but not on their homefield. It takes 32 bowlgames to play down to a champion. I think there are already 30 or 31, so you only have to create one more. This way you don't have a 5 week layoff before your bowlgame,and you don't have to watch both teams knock the rust off the first half. I think this takes 5 weeks to playoff, maybe 6, but go back to an eleven game season and you're finished at about the same time. The bowls and conferences get to make all their money, and you end up with an on the field champion.

Just curious??

 

Or am I the only one?

I got your back. I think the college football system makes everything in the regular season more important.

 

For the most part, the UK men's basketball regular season is irrelevant. If I watch their game with UNC, great and entertaining but it means close to nothing in UK's drive for a national title. That game is IRRELEVANT and only beneficial for the fans.

 

Now the USC/Notre Dame game MEANS SOMETHING. Their basketball game, if they still have one, is irrelevant to USC's/Notre Dame's national basketball title hopes.

 

I heard a comment this weekend that I liked....There is a playoff in college football. It is called regular season.

I got your back. I think the college football system makes everything in the regular season more important.

 

For the most part, the UK men's basketball regular season is irrelevant. If I watch their game with UNC, great and entertaining but it means close to nothing in UK's drive for a national title. That game is IRRELEVANT and only beneficial for the fans.

 

Now the USC/Notre Dame game MEANS SOMETHING. Their basketball game, if they still have one, is irrelevant to USC's/Notre Dame's national basketball title hopes.

 

I heard a comment this weekend that I liked....There is a playoff in college football. It is called regular season.

 

I'm so sick of people saying this. This is BULL!!!! The regular season is not a playoff. People make the statement, "Win all your games and you'll be fine." Not true, just ask Auburn from a couple of years ago. They won all their games and their bowl game. But did they get a share of the title, or even a chance to win it? NO. And what about USC from a few years ago? Oklahoma got dismantled in the Big 12 Championship game and STILL got into the title game, despite USC being undefeated. USC had to share the title with LSU. What about Utah that won the Fiesta Bowl a couple of year's ago. They were undefeated. Maybe they wouldn't have beaten the top teams, but why don't they deserve a chance?

 

Probably more times than not, the BCS has cheated at least one team from a shot at the title. Unless there is only 2 undefeated teams from seperate BCS conferences, there will always be debate about who should play. Even then, some schools will complain. I've been in favor of a playoff for awhile now. I think the top 8 teams will work fine. It's like 55 days until the BCS title game. There's plenty of time to have a 8 team playoff then.

I also believe people get a murky view of a playoff simply because of the NCAA basketball tournament and imagine cinderella stories, buzzer beaters (last second FGs), etc.

 

The only bad makeup I see in the system is having 3 teams in a BCS conference go undefeated (eg. Auburn). Which in the history of college football, how often has this happend? I would guess less than 5 times?

 

I have also never followed the logic that the only way to determine a true champion is by having a tournament? It is something with American sports culture that we believe a tournament solves everything. I am not going with the notion that the regular season means nothing in there were a playoff (or a lot less than it does in college basketball); but, you are crazy if you think Notre Dame and USC this Saturday would not be resting starters, watching injuries closely, etc. if there were a playoff.

 

I am still in favor of the +1.

I would like a compromise of 8 teams

Champs from

SEC

Big 10/11

Big 12

Pac 10

Big East

ACC

and two at large teams could be from these conf. or other deserving team

Play championship game week before Superbowl

 

Keep the rest of the bowl games, kinda like NIT for football. This would still let the rest of the teams a good payday. JMO

 

 

 

 

That would work for me.

I also believe people get a murky view of a playoff simply because of the NCAA basketball tournament and imagine cinderella stories, buzzer beaters (last second FGs), etc.

 

The only bad makeup I see in the system is having 3 teams in a BCS conference go undefeated (eg. Auburn). Which in the history of college football, how often has this happend? I would guess less than 5 times?

 

I have also never followed the logic that the only way to determine a true champion is by having a tournament? It is something with American sports culture that we believe a tournament solves everything. I am not going with the notion that the regular season means nothing in there were a playoff (or a lot less than it does in college basketball); but, you are crazy if you think Notre Dame and USC this Saturday would not be resting starters, watching injuries closely, etc. if there were a playoff.

 

I am still in favor of the +1.

 

You think so, even if it meant the difference between a #2 seed and a # 7 seed? Or even if 2 loses puts you out of the playoff? I think it would make them play harder.

You think so, even if it meant the difference between a #2 seed and a # 7 seed? Or even if 2 loses puts you out of the playoff? I think it would make them play harder.

We are splitting hairs when talking about seeds in college football, especially in an 8 team playoff in which most people are wanting to hold games on neutral sites. A 2 and 7 seed in college football is more of a ranking and not a seed. Of course if 2 loses puts you out of the playoff you are going to play... but, USC would have already clinched by winning the PAC-10 and playing a lot less inspired ball than the Irish would (assuming it is an 8 team playoff - 16 team playoff, both would play another day no matter how they perform).

I also believe people get a murky view of a playoff simply because of the NCAA basketball tournament and imagine cinderella stories, buzzer beaters (last second FGs), etc.

 

The only bad makeup I see in the system is having 3 teams in a BCS conference go undefeated (eg. Auburn). Which in the history of college football, how often has this happend? I would guess less than 5 times?

 

I have also never followed the logic that the only way to determine a true champion is by having a tournament? It is something with American sports culture that we believe a tournament solves everything. I am not going with the notion that the regular season means nothing in there were a playoff (or a lot less than it does in college basketball); but, you are crazy if you think Notre Dame and USC this Saturday would not be resting starters, watching injuries closely, etc. if there were a playoff.

 

I am still in favor of the +1.

 

Sorry, I forgot to comment on this earlier. Are you saying that you don't like playoffs or tournaments all together? You think Ohio St should be awared the title right now, and save us from the debate? What about the St. Louis Cardinals and their "worst record to ever win a World Series." If the playoffs were eliminated, they wouldn't even be in consideration. There are others, where the best record doesn't produce a title.

 

I'm hoping that I misunderstood what you meant and that I said this for nothing. Please tell me I'm wrong.

We are splitting hairs when talking about seeds in college football, especially in an 8 team playoff in which most people are wanting to hold games on neutral sites. A 2 and 7 seed in college football is more of a ranking and not a seed. Of course if 2 loses puts you out of the playoff you are going to play... but, USC would have already clinched by winning the PAC-10 and playing a lot less inspired ball than the Irish would (assuming it is an 8 team playoff - 16 team playoff, both would play another day no matter how they perform).

 

OK, perhaps with USC winning the Pac 10 and already being in. But about the seeds, I say use the rankings to determine the seeds. Currently the seeds would be #1 OSU, #2 UM, #3 USC........like that. At the current standings, if USC finished #3, they would have to play Arkansas again. But if they lost and dropped to 6 or 7, they would have to play Michigan or Florida. I think they would put forth the effort.

I'm so sick of people saying this. This is BULL!!!! The regular season is not a playoff. People make the statement, "Win all your games and you'll be fine." Not true, just ask Auburn from a couple of years ago. They won all their games and their bowl game. But did they get a share of the title, or even a chance to win it? NO. And what about USC from a few years ago? Oklahoma got dismantled in the Big 12 Championship game and STILL got into the title game, despite USC being undefeated. USC had to share the title with LSU. What about Utah that won the Fiesta Bowl a couple of year's ago. They were undefeated. Maybe they wouldn't have beaten the top teams, but why don't they deserve a chance?

 

Probably more times than not, the BCS has cheated at least one team from a shot at the title. Unless there is only 2 undefeated teams from seperate BCS conferences, there will always be debate about who should play. Even then, some schools will complain. I've been in favor of a playoff for awhile now. I think the top 8 teams will work fine. It's like 55 days until the BCS title game. There's plenty of time to have a 8 team playoff then.

 

I have a suggestion for you. Start a thread that names the 8 teams that you would invite to the playoffs and watch the posts gather on how you are cheating someone for leaving them out.

 

Here is a start? You going to invite 3 teams out of your 8 from the Big Ten? Which of the 3 Big East schools you inviting and which two are staying out home? Or maybe you don't invite any of them? How many SEC teams get invited? Texas the only big 12 school?

A playoff will never happen and let me tell you why:

Fed-Ex

Nokia

Tostitos

GMAC

Alamo

Capital One

Just to name a few. It's all about the $$$$$$. The NCAA makes so much off bowl season there is no reason to change it.