BCS Playoffs?

[infrared41]

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides. its not a difficult concept, its just a basic problem with real basic solutions and you keep thumping them like you can somehow make them more complicated by repeating them. you're the only expert here on anything. convenient that you "miss" the issues that undermine most of the points you make. and don't apologize, i've heard enough bs from you today already. i don't need any more.

If anyone is missing the point, its you. Your looking at it strictly from a fans point of view. Unfortunately the people who run the NCAA look at it from a business point of view. The fans main priorty is to get a system that will clearly declare a champion. The people who run the NCAA's main priorty is making money.

You say that that the NCAA Football postseason has "real basic solution". Well if that is the case, why hasn't the NCAA changed it? Do you honestly think they are a bunch of idiots that are completly oblivious to the constant talks of the problems with the BCS and/or can't comprehend how to come to a "real basic solution"? If it was so easy they'd do it. Heck it probably would have happened years ago. But there is one think standing in the way, MONEY.

Which solution do you think the people running the NCAA would choose?:

1. Keep the current system and maximize profits.

2. Change to a playoff system, and make a less money.

You're wasting your time. Slightly Shotgunned only argues with me. Great points though.

[slightly shotgunned]

you're not an advocate of the bcs, but you are against a playoff. which is it, cuz like the article said, you can't be on both sides. its not a difficult concept, its just a basic problem with real basic solutions and you keep thumping them like you can somehow make them more complicated by repeating them. you're the only expert here on anything. convenient that you "miss" the issues that undermine most of the points you make. and don't apologize, i've heard enough bs from you today already. i don't need any more.

If anyone is missing the point, its you. Your looking at it strictly from a fans point of view. Unfortunately the people who run the NCAA look at it from a business point of view. The fans main priorty is to get a system that will clearly declare a champion. The people who run the NCAA's main priorty is making money.

You say that that the NCAA Football postseason has "real basic solution". Well if that is the case, why hasn't the NCAA changed it? Do you honestly think they are a bunch of idiots that are completly oblivious to the constant talks of the problems with the BCS and/or can't comprehend how to come to a "real basic solution"? If it was so easy they'd do it. Heck it probably would have happened years ago. But there is one think standing in the way, MONEY.

Which solution do you think the people running the NCAA would choose?:

1. Keep the current system and maximize profits.

2. Change to a playoff system, and make a less money.

the solution is very simple. see, the bcs is a separate entity from the ncaa (albeit run by conference chairmen). therefore, they are a third party or middle man or whatever who wish to see their way of doing things continued in order to keep filling their pockets. eliminate them, and the problem with schools getting money for playoff games is solved by playing the all games except for the championship game at the higher ranked teams home field and playing the championship game at a neutral site. you're not going to see a central michigan or a troy or any other mid-major program host a playoff game no matter how good they are, so we're talking however much money those schools get from home games already, plus whatever bonus would be involved for a playoff game, plus media coverage, minus expenses. there's a potential to make more money if your school continues to win because its three extra home games a year (if you're good). the ncaa still makes its money, the networks, who are going to broadcast the games anyway (who didn't see notre dame all year this year?), still get paid, the sponsors still get a piece, and some fans are happier. who loses? it'll be complicated to actually do, but it's not a complicated idea.

and to clear this up. i'm not against this as a fan of college football, i'm against it from a player's standpoint (i'm not a player, never was, not claiming to be. i do, however know what goes into a football player's season, the two a days, the film study, the conditioning, the weight training, the everything that goes into being an athlete on top of being in school, and while it is exciting to go to a bowl game, most players don't want that to end their season. they get it. they know its about the money and that they benefit very little from the bowl game itself other than to try and impress pro scouts who may be watching, but because they are competitors, they go out and compete. reward the players for a conference championship with more than a congratulations and a backhanded compliment (like the GMAC bowl against louisville) and give them the title shot they deserve as much as the big six conferences who go through the same things every year.

You're wasting your time. Slightly Shotgunned only argues with me. Great points though.

didn't realize you were so possessive of me. i'm flattered.

[andrewharrington]

I just want NCAA football to wake up, quit whining, and play it how it was meant to be played: all business, no frills, settle it on the field. First, I think one has to go with 24 teams in the playoff; if one were to take any less than that, too many good teams with legitimate shots to go deep in the bracket are eliminated. Earn your seed and your first-round bye. Second, eff you if you won Conference USA or the Mountain West with a 9-3 record and think you deserve a playoff spot; take care of business and the rankings will put you in the playoffs. Third, one can't turn a blind eye to all the history the bowls carried for the last hundred years; after the 'home games' in the first two rounds, the 'Final Four' games are played in four former elite bowl stadia: the Orange Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, the Cotton Bowl and the U. of Phoenix Stadium. The semis are played at the former sites of the two other grandaddies: the Superdome and the Rose Bowl. The NCAA can take bids for the title game. The potential matchups are killer (I've used the BCS standing to rank them).

[infrared41]

I just want NCAA football to wake up, quit whining, and play it how it was meant to be played: all business, no frills, settle it on the field. First, I think one has to go with 24 teams in the playoff; if one were to take any less than that, too many good teams with legitimate shots to go deep in the bracket are eliminated.

Hey Slightly Shotgunned, see what I mean? First it's 4 then it's 8 then it's 16 and now we have our first 24 team version.

Just saying.

It's just a joke. No need to write another manifesto.

Seriously though, I'll get in the spirit of things and propose my own playoff.

8 teams. 4 Bowls. Use the traditional tie-ins instead of seeding or polls. Polls would only play a role in selecting two teams.

Jan. 1

Rose Bowl: Big 10 and Pac-10 winners.

Orange Bowl: Big 12 and ACC

Sugar Bowl: SEC and Big East

Fiesta Bowl: The best of the rest.

Play the semi-finals a week later and the Championship game the following week.

The Semi-Finals and The Championship game can be awarded just like the Super Bowl. Any city that meets the criteria can bid to host the games. Or they can simply rotate them among the bigger bowl sites.

I know those tie-ins aren't exactly right but you keep the traditional ones and either add the ones I have or rotate the Big East and ACC between the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta. Or The Fiesta hosts what would essentially be at-large bids which would come from either the traditional powers or would include a Hawaii or Boise State that breaks through. So to get in you either have to win your conference or play lights out all season long. It's very similar to the NFL. Division champs are in. Everyone else is playing for two "wild card" slots. That would preserve the regular season.

This system preserves the bowls so the money keeps flowing. The fans don't have to worry about where they're going every year. The Networks like it because they know who they're getting. And it adds a bunch of new revenue streams to the mix with the semi-finals and championship game being up for grabs.

Here's how it would look this year.

Rose: Ohio State-USC

Orange: Oklahoma-Virginia Tech

Sugar: LSU-West Virginia

Fiesta: Pick two from Hawaii, Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, etc. You could even use the BCS model for this game.

It's not perfect but it achieves every goal to my satisfaction and I am anti-playoff.

Just a thought.

[Epiphanic]

This has probably been addressed earlier, yet this question persists. It seems that the big concern against a playoff is that ratings will be significantly lower than the current bowl system because minor schools (e.g. MAC champion) would take a spot that would normally go to a major school. But wouldn't a 16-team playoff give the major schools more spots?

Under the current system there are 5 bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Rose, Sugar, and BCS) equating to 10 teams playing in these "money games." In an average year, all 10 of these spots would be given to teams from the 6 major conferences. Only when a team like Hawai'i "busts the BCS" does a major school (like Missouri or Arizona St. this year) get bumped.

With a 16-team playoff there would be 11 auto-bids (one for each conference champion) and 5 al-large bids. Since Hawai'i now becomes an auto-bid it frees up an at-large bid compared to the current system. Even in this crazy year, all 5 auto-bids would go to teams from the 6 major conferences totaling to 11 "big name" schools, more than the 10 -- or 9 with years like this -- they currently get.

If networks want big name schools to compete to draw in the viewers they will get more big name schools in a 16-team playoff system. Networks get the "brand name" to bring in the money and smaller schools get a shot deserved shot at the title.

[slightly shotgunned]

This has probably been addressed earlier, yet this question persists. It seems that the big concern against a playoff is that ratings will be significantly lower than the current bowl system because minor schools (e.g. MAC champion) would take a spot that would normally go to a major school. But wouldn't a 16-team playoff give the major schools more spots?

Under the current system there are 5 bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Rose, Sugar, and BCS) equating to 10 teams playing in these "money games." In an average year, all 10 of these spots would be given to teams from the 6 major conferences. Only when a team like Hawai'i "busts the BCS" does a major school (like Missouri or Arizona St. this year) get bumped.

With a 16-team playoff there would be 11 auto-bids (one for each conference champion) and 5 al-large bids. Since Hawai'i now becomes an auto-bid it frees up an at-large bid compared to the current system. Even in this crazy year, all 5 auto-bids would go to teams from the 6 major conferences totaling to 11 "big name" schools, more than the 10 -- or 9 with years like this -- they currently get.

If networks want big name schools to compete to draw in the viewers they will get more big name schools in a 16-team playoff system. Networks get the "brand name" to bring in the money and smaller schools get a shot deserved shot at the title.

good point epiphanic. and nice bracket andrew, but 24 teams is too many. in college football there are really only about 8 elite teams at the end of the year. infrared's plan of having an 8 team playoff still excludes the mid-majors so it only solves half of the current bcs problem (as i see it). 11 conference winners, 5 at-large. you'll end up with 11 current bcs schools (because, lets face it, they'll be ranked higher at the end of the season) and the conference winners from the remaining non-bcs conferences. if you want to keep the historic bowl ties, the teams that didn't make the playoffs from the affiliated conferences can still play in the bowls, or you can integrate the bowls into the system. either way.

[infrared41]

good point epiphanic. and nice bracket andrew, but 24 teams is too many. in college football there are really only about 8 elite teams at the end of the year.

infrared's plan of having an 8 team playoff still excludes the mid-majors so it only solves half of the current bcs problem (as i see it). 11 conference winners, 5 at-large. you'll end up with 11 current bcs schools (because, lets face it, they'll be ranked higher at the end of the season) and the conference winners from the remaining non-bcs conferences. if you want to keep the historic bowl ties, the teams that didn't make the playoffs from the affiliated conferences can still play in the bowls, or you can integrate the bowls into the system. either way.

I can't believe I am doing this... I am about to pimp a playoff plan that I came up with. We're officially through the looking glass now.

I see your point about my plan excluding the mid-majors but to that I would simply ask this; In all the years of a 64 team tournament in basketball, how many mid-majors have won it all? Made the final four? Final eight? I am not against including them in a playoff but I'm also trying to approach the idea from as realistic an angle as possible.

The reality is that, barring a major miracle, 99 times out of 100 the mid-major schools in a 16 team playoff would get smoked in the first round. And you said it yourself, at the end of any given season there are really only 8 elite teams, if that. So including the mids, while noble, would essentially be a waste of time. As I said, I am not against the idea but reality seems to say that it's unlikely the mid-majors are going to be guaranteed any bids in any playoff. They could still get a bid in my plan but they'd have to really be something to do it.

Give me some time to catch up here, I'm still getting used to the idea that I have endorsed a playoff plan at all.

[slightly shotgunned]

I see your point about my plan excluding the mid-majors but to that I would simply ask this; In all the years of a 64 team tournament in basketball, how many mid-majors have won it all? Made the final four? Final eight? I am not against including them in a playoff but I'm also trying to approach the idea from as realistic an angle as possible.

i could go into the answer, give you the numbers, but i just don't have the energy so the short answer is, it happens enough that the field is 65 and all 35 conference winners are included. yes, mid-majors are likely to get smoked 99 out of 100 times, but how can you be sure that the one time the mid would win wouldn't be the one time it met the major team in that one playoff game? rhetorical, you could never be sure of that. so include them. either that or send them to d1aa so they can have a shot at something. if you did that, an 8 team playoff would work a lot better, but then 1aa would be overloaded. what would an 8 team playoff do with mid major conference winners?

Give me some time to catch up here, I'm still getting used to the idea that I have endorsed a playoff plan at all.

take all the time you need.

[andrewharrington]

If I were to do a 'playoff' and keeping the bowl games was a requirement, my preference has always been similar to that of infrared's:

ROSE BOWL

Big Ten Champion v. Pac-10 Champion

SUGAR BOWL

SEC Champion v. At-Large Bid

FIESTA BOWL

Big XII Champion v. At-Large Bid

ORANGE BOWL

ACC Champion v. Big East Champion

After these four games are played, the highest-ranked winner would play the lowest-ranked winner and the middle two would play each other in the semifinals (at the Cotton Bowl and the Citrus Bowl). The winners of those two games would meet at a predetermined neutral site for the National Championship. Very simple and very much in line with the history of the bowl games.

[HedleyLamarr]

i could go into the answer, give you the numbers, but i just don't have the energy so the short answer is, it happens enough that the field is 65 and all 35 conference winners are included. yes, mid-majors are likely to get smoked 99 out of 100 times, but how can you be sure that the one time the mid would win wouldn't be the one time it met the major team in that one playoff game? rhetorical, you could never be sure of that. so include them. either that or send them to d1aa so they can have a shot at something. if you did that, an 8 team playoff would work a lot better, but then 1aa would be overloaded. what would an 8 team playoff do with mid major conference winners?

Why do you insist on having college football's postseason resemble college basketball? Do you honestly believe that more than four teams are really deserving of playing for the national championship in each season?

[AndrewG70]

Okay, this should be the end-all to the whole playoff argument...

First off, I am 100% in favor of a playoff system. Enough with leaving the national championship to a committee of voters. Settle it on the field once and for all. No matter what formula you use, it is virtually impossible to whittle down a 119-team field to just two teams after a 12-game season (sometimes 13). No matter how you slice and dice it, there will ALWAYS be controversy and someone will get hosed.

Every year, it seems light eight teams make a legitimate claim to be given the opportunity to play for a national title. An eight-team field in the FBS I believe would be plenty to determine a national champion. Select the eight teams and have them play in the traditional BCS bowls, which would in effect serve as the first round, have the semifinals a week later and the BCS Championship Game, rotated between Glendale, New Orleans, Miami and Pasadena, a week after that. Living in a city that hosts a BCS bowl, I can tell you that there is just way too much money at stake to eliminate the traditional New Year's Day bowls, as there are several other events tieing into the football game besides the game itself. So keep all the bowls and make the four BCS Bowls the first round of an eight-team tournament.

So how do you select the eight teams? Like this:

The key here is to select the eight teams most worthy of playing for a national title, regardless of conference affiliation (or the lack thereof). Use a four-step process, stopping when the field reaches eight teams.

STEP 1: Include all undefeated teams ranked in the top 12 of the BCS standings. This is so that teams who win all their games have the opportunity to play for a title, eliminated only by getting defeated by a better opponent. Include a top-12 stipulation to prevent teams from scheduling considerably inferior non-conference opponents to ensure an undefeated record. Yes, Hawaii had two opponents in the former I-AA, but they ended the season with a #10 BCS ranking, so they would get in. In fact, using this season's BCS standings, Hawaii would be the only team that would get in via this step.

STEP 2: Include conference champions in the top 8 of the BCS standings. This is to ensure that no conference champion with a comparitively inferior record from a BCS conference takes a spot that would otherwise go to a more deserving team. For instance, last season, Wake Forest won the ACC title. But their record and BCS ranking were far lower than those of, say, Boise State. This stipulation would ensure that Boise State would take priority over Wake Forest in inclusion into the tournament. Using this season's rankings, the teams that would get in at this stage would be #1 Ohio State (Big 10), #2 LSU (SEC), #3 Virginia Tech (ACC), #4 Oklahoma (Big XII) and #7 USC (Pac 10). Also, include an independent clause: if an inddependent team wins at least ten games over FBS opponents, that team will be treated as if it was a conference champion. Extend this criteria to no more than one independent team (this year, no independent would qualify in this manner).

STEP 3: Include all non-champions ranked in the top 4 of the BCS standings. This would ensure that any conference championship games for conferences that have them would remain meaningful. As we saw this past weekend, Missouri entered the Big XII title game as the #1 team in the nation. After losing, they fell to #6. Under this stipulation, while Missouri may still be worthy of getting into the tournament, they would now have to hope for an at-large bid rather than gaining an automatic berth. Using this season's rankings, no team would get in at this stage.

STEP 4: If the first three steps fail to completely fill out the eight-team field, gather a committee to select the last teams to get in. Use the BCS rankings to consider teams in the top 12 not already in the field for inclusion. Using this year's rankings, the candidates would be #5 Georgia, #6 Missouri, #8 Kansas, #9 West Virginia, #11 Arizona State and #12 Florida. All those teams have two losses, except for Kansas (1) and Florida (3). Part of the reasoning behind a committee is to ensure that no team gets unfairly left out of the field by virtue of simply a higher ranking or fewer losses. For example, Kansas has one fewer loss than Missouri. The reason is that by losing to Missouri, Kansas failed to qualify for the Big XII championship game, thus they did not have an opportunity to get that second loss. Therefore, they should not be rewarded with a tournament berth while Missouri gets left out. So let's say for the sake of argument, the committee chooses Georgia and Missouri to complete the field of eight.

Therefore, this year's field would be:

Ohio State

LSU

Virginia Tech

Oklahoma

Georgia

Missouri

USC

Hawaii

Put those eight teams into bowl games based on their traditional conference affiliation, ensuring that #1 does not play #2 (save that matchup for the BCS Championship Game). So let's say the games look like this:

ROSE BOWL: Ohio State vs. USC

FIESTA BOWL: Oklahoma vs. Georgia

SUGAR BOWL: LSU vs. Hawaii

ORANGE BOWL: Virginia Tech vs. Missouri

Set up the bracket so that there is, in effect, an east bracket (Sugar and Orange) and a west bracket (Rose and Fiesta). The winners of the Sugar and Orange bowls would face one another in one semifinal in either Miami or New Orleans, and the winners of the Rose and Fiesta bowls would square off in either Glendale or Pasadena. The winners of those games would advance to the BCS Championship Game.

This way, you have an eight-team tournament with teams that truly have a case to play for a national championship, and you maintain the integrity of all the bowl games, BCS games and otherwise. This formula should please all college football players, coaches, administrators and, most importantly, fans.

[Epiphanic]

I see your point about my plan excluding the mid-majors but to that I would simply ask this; In all the years of a 64 team tournament in basketball, how many mid-majors have won it all? Made the final four? Final eight? I am not against including them in a playoff but I'm also trying to approach the idea from as realistic an angle as possible.

As I see it that's not the point. Granted mid-major teams (e.g. George Mason) rarely make a big splash in the NCAA tournament. In fact, out of the 65 teams that are invited, probably no more than 16 (and I think I'm being generous there) have a "legitimate" shot at winning the tournament. Yet does that mean that the other 49 teams should be simply written off and not invited because they don't have a "legitimate" shot? No. My biggest problem with the BCS isn't that Hawaii isn't considered a "legitimate" contender. My biggest problem with the BCS is that Hawaii is written off because they are a mid-major program. Furthermore, upsets do happen. As soon as you recognize that a mid-major -- whether it be George Mason in basketball or Hawaii in football -- is capable of defeating a big-time, established program, you can't exclude that team simply because their odds are small.

That being said, I read an article on ESPN.com's Page 2 that allowed me to accept the BCS system as it is. It's main premise was the the winner of the BCS Championship game isn't the national champion, the winner is the BCS Champion.. In fact, the author argues that the BCS wasn't designed to determine a national champion. In fact, I could probably live with the bowl system existing with the knowledge that any semblance of a "true" champion isn't determined from those standings. If a champion is needed, then to a playoff system -- including all conference champions -- we go. If a champion isn't needed, then I would be fine with leaving the BCS be, provided it's not considered a national champion.

[slightly shotgunned]

i could go into the answer, give you the numbers, but i just don't have the energy so the short answer is, it happens enough that the field is 65 and all 35 conference winners are included. yes, mid-majors are likely to get smoked 99 out of 100 times, but how can you be sure that the one time the mid would win wouldn't be the one time it met the major team in that one playoff game? rhetorical, you could never be sure of that. so include them. either that or send them to d1aa so they can have a shot at something. if you did that, an 8 team playoff would work a lot better, but then 1aa would be overloaded. what would an 8 team playoff do with mid major conference winners?

Why do you insist on having college football's postseason resemble college basketball? Do you honestly believe that more than four teams are really deserving of playing for the national championship in each season?

of course i do. look at this year. how many teams are really deserving. and shouldn't winning a conference qualify you for a shot? or is it, big boys only. again, i'm not looking at it from a fan's perspective. my argument is for the players and the players deserve more than a congratulatory handshake.

[infrared41]

i could go into the answer, give you the numbers, but i just don't have the energy so the short answer is, it happens enough that the field is 65 and all 35 conference winners are included. yes, mid-majors are likely to get smoked 99 out of 100 times, but how can you be sure that the one time the mid would win wouldn't be the one time it met the major team in that one playoff game?

I am going from memory and I am not including the Gonzagas, Butlers, Xavier etc. type schools who are usually pretty good. I would say they are the Basketball equivalent of Hawaii, Boise State, BYU, etc.; good enough to knock off a powerhouse once in a great while, but no serious threat to win a title. I am looking at this from my best estimate as the football equivalent of a mid-major making it out of the first round.

And here's your answer. Final Four: George Mason That's one. Elite Eight: I think Kent State may have made the elite eight once. That's one. There may be more but it's not many. No mid-major has won the tournament. That's zero. Numerous mid-majors have made the sweet 16 only to get sent home which is exactly where they'd be starting from in a 16 team football playoff. The likelihood of an upset in basketball is much greater than in football. Even this year where upsets were happening left and right it still wasn't the norm.

I love the mid-majors in basketball. I love it when Boise State knocks off Oklahoma in football. I am a mid-major alumni (Toledo) and I still think that a.) there's no way they're ever going to be guaranteed a spot in a football playoff, and b.) it's a waste of time if they are. Boise State and Hawaii have both proven that you can play your way in...once in a while. The Boise State/Hawaii argument isn't exactly a yearly event. When a team rises up they're rewarded (remember Utah?) As of right now, Central Michigan, Florida Atlantic, UCF, Tulsa, Troy, et al, have yet to play their way in. And it ain't looking like they're going to anytime soon.

Everyone asks "why should the mid-majors be punished?" They aren't being punished any more in my plan than they are now. Central Michigan didn't turn down their bowl bid this year because they got screwed out of the Orange Bowl or a chance to play Ohio State for the title. In fact, I don't think they complained about anything. My plan doesn't add or subtract anything from the life of the Central Michigan's of the world.

Put those eight teams into bowl games based on their traditional conference affiliation, ensuring that #1 does not play #2 (save that matchup for the BCS Championship Game).

Everyone hates the polls so let's stop using them as much as possible. In my plan they are only used to select the two at-large teams. Conference winners aren't seeded. They play their bowl games. If they win they keep going. The semi-finals can be "seeded" regionally. Example: If USC and Oklahoma make the next round then they play in the west. A coin toss determines who wears their road jersey. Keeping the polls out of it actually adds emphasis to the regular season. If you don't win your conference in all likelihood you aren't going anywhere but the "regular bowls" so you better play your ass off every week. And as an added bonus, teams would be more likely to play tougher out of conference games because strength of schedule would likely play a role in picking at large teams.

Say Georgia goes 10-2 with an out of conference loss to Oklahoma while Ohio State goes 10-2 but plays Akron and Youngstown State in their non-conference match-ups. It's and easy decision on who to pick (spare me the SEC vs. Big 10 stuff, It's just an example.) I'd even say that under my plan a two loss team with a tough schedule would be easier to justify as an at-large over a one-loss team and a creampuff schedule. You start rewarding the teams that take the hard road and we'll start seeing better non-conference matchups and less 1-AA "exhibition games" (Michigan will have a dilemma but it works for everyone else.)

That being said, I read an article on ESPN.com's Page 2 that allowed me to accept the BCS system as it is. It's main premise was the the winner of the BCS Championship game isn't the national champion,

I read the same article and I agreed with every word of it.

[HedleyLamarr]

Why do you insist on having college football's postseason resemble college basketball? Do you honestly believe that more than four teams are really deserving of playing for the national championship in each season?

of course i do. look at this year. how many teams are really deserving. and shouldn't winning a conference qualify you for a shot? or is it, big boys only. again, i'm not looking at it from a fan's perspective. my argument is for the players and the players deserve more than a congratulatory handshake.

Honestly, two or three teams: Ohio State, LSU, and Oklahoma. From these three, LSU gets the first nod since they didn't lose in regulation. Ohio State gets the other bid, since they finished with fewer losses, with their lone loss coming to the #13 team in the BCS. Virginia Tech gets knocked out because of their 41-point loss to LSU. USC gets knocked out for losing to the 9th-place team in the Pac-10 at home. Hawaii gets some consideration, but their terrible schedule strength and lack of quality wins knocks them out.

Georgia finished #5, and as big a Dawgs fan I am, I can't make an arguement for them to get a sniff at the national championship. If you can make an arguement for any #5 in the final BCS standings, I'd love to hear it.

[infrared41]

Why do you insist on having college football's postseason resemble college basketball? Do you honestly believe that more than four teams are really deserving of playing for the national championship in each season?

of course i do. look at this year. how many teams are really deserving. and shouldn't winning a conference qualify you for a shot? or is it, big boys only. again, i'm not looking at it from a fan's perspective. my argument is for the players and the players deserve more than a congratulatory handshake.

Honestly, two or three teams: Ohio State, LSU, and Oklahoma. From these three, LSU gets the first nod since they didn't lose in regulation. Ohio State gets the other bid, since they finished with fewer losses, with their lone loss coming to the #13 team in the BCS. Virginia Tech gets knocked out because of their 41-point loss to LSU. USC gets knocked out for losing to the 9th-place team in the Pac-10 at home. Hawaii gets some consideration, but their terrible schedule strength and lack of quality wins knocks them out.

Georgia finished #5, and as big a Dawgs fan I am, I can't make an arguement for them to get a sniff at the national championship. If you can make an arguement for any #5 in the final BCS standings, I'd love to hear it.

Exactly. I am being generous in putting 8 teams in my playoff. Let's face it, most "experts" don't see The Big East as being on the same level as The SEC, Big 10, Pac-10 and Big 12. Outside of a few teams (Va. Tech then Miami and Florida State when they're good) you'd be hard pressed to argue that the ACC is consistently considered by experts to be on the same level as the "Big Conferences. I'm not saying they are or they aren't, I am just pointing out the perception.

A 16 team playoff that included the mid-majors would never fly for all the financial reasons I have already gone over but even with that out of the way it would still be unrealistic from a competitive standpoint. I love watching them and I always root for them but they're called mid-majors for a reason.

You're looking for fair and logical in a sport that is run on money and money. And for the record, the players all get a free education and some pretty nice perks being a scholarship athlete. I think the majority of the people on this board would gladly trade their student loan payments and all the other college expenses for a chance to go to school free, play a sport they love, and be insulted by a bid to play in the GMAC bowl or maybe be left out of a playoff.

[slightly shotgunned]

Why do you insist on having college football's postseason resemble college basketball? Do you honestly believe that more than four teams are really deserving of playing for the national championship in each season?

of course i do. look at this year. how many teams are really deserving. and shouldn't winning a conference qualify you for a shot? or is it, big boys only. again, i'm not looking at it from a fan's perspective. my argument is for the players and the players deserve more than a congratulatory handshake.

Honestly, two or three teams: Ohio State, LSU, and Oklahoma. From these three, LSU gets the first nod since they didn't lose in regulation. Ohio State gets the other bid, since they finished with fewer losses, with their lone loss coming to the #13 team in the BCS. Virginia Tech gets knocked out because of their 41-point loss to LSU. USC gets knocked out for losing to the 9th-place team in the Pac-10 at home. Hawaii gets some consideration, but their terrible schedule strength and lack of quality wins knocks them out.

Georgia finished #5, and as big a Dawgs fan I am, I can't make an arguement for them to get a sniff at the national championship. If you can make an arguement for any #5 in the final BCS standings, I'd love to hear it.

are you seriously using that as an argument for lsu? last time i checked, in football when your score is lower than the score your team is playing when the game ends, you lose. doesn't matter when the time expires. regulation, overtime, next year. a loss is a loss and lsu has two of them. so, if you can have two losses win the conference and still get into the title game, what about oklahoma and west virginia? and honestly, you're going to say that usc (arguably the hottest and strongest team in the country right now) isn't one of the elite teams even ranked at 7. i'll stop there. usc at 7 is an elite team making all teams ranked before them better. including #5. there's your argument for georgia.

so the case isn't for #5. its what makes #2 with two losses better than #10 with none. when osu was undefeated and ranked #1 there was a HUGE gripe about their schedule. infrared and other buckeye fans argued that osu couldn't help the rankings or strength of other teams. all the bucks did to earn a number one spot was go out and beat every team that lined up opposite them. the same argument applies to hawai'i. so that's number 10.

last year, usc was 5. the year before that, 1 loss Oregon (and if they didn't beat #1USC, that was probably where that loss came from: i have no idea though). before that, it was undefeated Utah. i could go on. point is, number 5 (and like i said, there are about 8 a year) usually has a legitimate shot if the teams settled the matter on the field and didn't allow a third party to settle the matter in a voting booth. Given enough time, we could all sit here and come up with any number of reasons as to why two teams are better than the rest, but none of those reasons would matter if the games were played. hell, even simulated you can't be sure of the outcome unless you make it impossible for one team to lose.

[slightly shotgunned]

Exactly. I am being generous in putting 8 teams in my playoff. Let's face it, most "experts" don't see The Big East as being on the same level as The SEC, Big 10, Pac-10 and Big 12. Outside of a few teams (Va. Tech then Miami and Florida State when they're good) you'd be hard pressed to argue that the ACC is consistently considered by experts to be on the same level as the "Big Conferences. I'm not saying they are or they aren't, I am just pointing out the perception.

A 16 team playoff that included the mid-majors would never fly for all the financial reasons I have already gone over but even with that out of the way it would still be unrealistic from a competitive standpoint. I love watching them and I always root for them but they're called mid-majors for a reason.

You're looking for fair and logical in a sport that is run on money and money. And for the record, the players all get a free education and some pretty nice perks being a scholarship athlete. I think the majority of the people on this board would gladly trade their student loan payments and all the other college expenses for a chance to go to school free, play a sport they love, and be insulted by a bid to play in the GMAC bowl or maybe be left out of a playoff.

and i'm trying to point out that perception means jack when it comes to the actual game so stop falling back on that. i'm sure you'd know the answer to this and i can't find it: how much money does ohio state make on average for a home game? and would playing (potentially) three extra home games equal out to more or less money than the big 10's take this year from having two bcs bowl teams. 30 million split between 11 teams, its about 2.7 million each with no bonus that i know of for winning the game. not to mention the money made for the city of columbus in hotels, food, and other things i don't know about. and i know they all get that free education and if i got another opportunity there'd be no hesitation in my acceptance, but i ask you what makes a student athlete from Toledo and one from Ohio State so different that its ok for the toledo guy to be insulted and treated like a special needs kid?

[HedleyLamarr]

are you seriously using that as an argument for lsu? last time i checked, in football when your score is lower than the score your team is playing when the game ends, you lose. doesn't matter when the time expires. regulation, overtime, next year. a loss is a loss and lsu has two of them. so, if you can have two losses win the conference and still get into the title game, what about oklahoma and west virginia? and honestly, you're going to say that usc (arguably the hottest and strongest team in the country right now) isn't one of the elite teams even ranked at 7. i'll stop there. usc at 7 is an elite team making all teams ranked before them better. including #5. there's your argument for georgia.

so the case isn't for #5. its what makes #2 with two losses better than #10 with none. when osu was undefeated and ranked #1 there was a HUGE gripe about their schedule. infrared and other buckeye fans argued that osu couldn't help the rankings or strength of other teams. all the bucks did to earn a number one spot was go out and beat every team that lined up opposite them. the same argument applies to hawai'i. so that's number 10.

last year, usc was 5. the year before that, 1 loss Oregon (and if they didn't beat #1USC, that was probably where that loss came from: i have no idea though). before that, it was undefeated Utah. i could go on. point is, number 5 (and like i said, there are about 8 a year) usually has a legitimate shot if the teams settled the matter on the field and didn't allow a third party to settle the matter in a voting booth. Given enough time, we could all sit here and come up with any number of reasons as to why two teams are better than the rest, but none of those reasons would matter if the games were played. hell, even simulated you can't be sure of the outcome unless you make it impossible for one team to lose.

It doesn't matter who's currently the hottest. You have to look at the season as a whole in determining which teams are the most deserving. There are never more than 4 elite teams in any season. Georgia is not an elite team, nor is USC. They just had pretty good seasons and played as best any team could down the stretch. A team hot in November doesn't mean anything when it comes to looking at the whole season.

Yes, overtime losses get looked at differently than regulation losses, especially those that take multiple overtimes. What the voters see in LSU is a team that lost two games in extra time, and a team that soundly beat the ACC champion and #3 BCS team, as well as defeating three other teams in the top-25 of the BCS. What the voters see in Ohio State is a team who's only loss came to the #13 team.

What the voters see in Oklahoma, USC, Georgia, and West Virginia are 2-loss teams that didn't take care of business when they had to (Three of which lost, at home, to teams that are either .500 or worse). Oklahoma lost to 6-6 Colorado. Georgia lost at home to 6-6 South Carolina. USC lost at home to 4-8 Stanford. West Virginia lost at home to 5-7 Pitt. These results get magnified at the end of the season.

Since there are so few games teams can play, schedule strength has to play a part. Hawaii played the 3rd-easiest schedule in the country. Their combined opponents won a grand total of 47 games (And Boise State is responsible for 10 of those wins), which places them second in fewest wins by opponents in the country. Hawaii played a grand total of two teams with winning records. Ohio State played mush stiffer competition. Comparing these two schedules is just a waste of time.

Now that you've established that there are 7 elite teams this season, why have you been advocating an 8-16 team playoff (I've forgotten who all's proposed whichever playoff scenario and how many teams they include....), where you would have at least 1-9 teams that you are admitting that aren't elite and aren't worthy of playing for the national championship? Doesn't it make the regular season less meaningful if you're allowing teams that aren't worthy of the NC play for it?

By the way, I'm not going to consider anything you type as serious unless you learn some manners by capitalizing your sentences. It's not that difficult a thing to do....

[slightly shotgunned]

By the way, I'm not going to consider anything you type as serious unless you learn some manners by capitalizing your sentences. It's not that difficult a thing to do....

then i suggest you stop reading now and save me the trouble of having to reply to you.

It doesn't matter who's currently the hottest. You have to look at the season as a whole in determining which teams are the most deserving. There are never more than 4 elite teams in any season. Georgia is not an elite team, nor is USC. They just had pretty good seasons and played as best any team could down the stretch. A team hot in November doesn't mean anything when it comes to looking at the whole season.

Yes, overtime losses get looked at differently than regulation losses, especially those that take multiple overtimes. What the voters see in LSU is a team that lost two games in extra time, and a team that soundly beat the ACC champion and #3 BCS team, as well as defeating three other teams in the top-25 of the BCS. What the voters see in Ohio State is a team who's only loss came to the #13 team.

What the voters see in Oklahoma, USC, Georgia, and West Virginia are 2-loss teams that didn't take care of business when they had to (Three of which lost, at home, to teams that are either .500 or worse). Oklahoma lost to 6-6 Colorado. Georgia lost at home to 6-6 South Carolina. USC lost at home to 4-8 Stanford. West Virginia lost at home to 5-7 Pitt. These results get magnified at the end of the season.

Since there are so few games teams can play, schedule strength has to play a part. Hawaii played the 3rd-easiest schedule in the country. Their combined opponents won a grand total of 47 games (And Boise State is responsible for 10 of those wins), which places them second in fewest wins by opponents in the country. Hawaii played a grand total of two teams with winning records. Ohio State played mush stiffer competition. Comparing these two schedules is just a waste of time.

Now that you've established that there are 7 elite teams this season, why have you been advocating an 8-16 team playoff (I've forgotten who all's proposed whichever playoff scenario and how many teams they include....), where you would have at least 1-9 teams that you are admitting that aren't elite and aren't worthy of playing for the national championship? Doesn't it make the regular season less meaningful if you're allowing teams that aren't worthy of the NC play for it?

still reading? thought so.

an overtime loss is still a loss, and if you're going to go on about which team beat who and throw in the final rankings of the teams, lsu's losses to UNRATED kentucky and UNRATED arkansas means they didn't take care of business when they had to. kentucky went *3-5 in the sec and arkansas 4-4 so at a combined 7-9, these are two teams lsu shouldn't have lost to let alone gone into overtime with. colorado and texas tech are both 4-4 in conference plus oklahoma beat a number one ranked team this year. lsu can't say that. so i'd say on the year, the sooners had a better team (if you want to say that vatech isn't an elite school their ranking is about as relevant as michigan's early season ranking this year.) so why not them? USC's losses to stanford (3-6) and oregon (5-4) > lsu's conference losses since oregon was ranked #5th at the time and don't lose three straight with dennis dixon. and now the team everyone forgot about. arizona state, who's losses come to oregon and usc. so here's a two loss team, ranked 12th with ...and yeah we're really having this argument ... better losses than lsu, yet lsu gets in because they're undefeated in regulation and i can't even type that without laughing at it. how could you possibly give that argument any credit at all if you know anything about sports? look, lsu got in because they were the convenient choice for being most deserving, not because they are necessarily the best team. when 'experts' use phrases like "probably the best" to describe the teams picked, its usually an indication that even they don't agree either.

*conference records are used in retaliation to other convenient stats used to illustrate a point. the underlying argument is team x beat team y, team y beat team z, therefore, team x > team z. always true in math, not always true in football.

now on to your question. there are 7-8 elite teams a year, yes. but if you've read anything else i've also said that conference champions from mid-major schools shouldn't be left out because, whether you like it or not, they also deserve to prove the people who say they can't hang with the big boys right or wrong. a sixteen team playoff solves both problems by getting those 7-8 teams in and getting those mid-majors a shot while also keeping quiet the people who would feel their 'power' school was snubbed in favor of a mid-major. and no, it wouldn't dilute the meaning of the regular season if you include this rule: at-large bids must also be second in their conference. the bcs has let teams in the title game that have not won their conference, so don't even start with that, but how would you break a tie? for now i don't have a solution so a :shudder: selection committee, would decide that outcome. once infrared (or anyone else who knows) gets me the info on how much a school like osu, or michigan, or usc, or florida, or oklahoma, or lsu, or the like makes per home game, i'll get deeper into the financial benefits of playing the non-title rounds at the higher ranked team's home stadium.

edit: and it absolutely does matter who's hottest at the end of the year according to the bcs. i'd bring up last year but then i'd get that 'whiny michigan fan' tag again and i don't want that so i'll just go with 'that's why it is possible to lose a game early or mid way and still be good enough to play for a national title or a major bowl. which uh, kinda takes some of the meaning out of the regular season doesn't it? i mean, if every game is supposed to be a playoff game under the bcs system, a loss would eliminate you no matter when it was wouldn't it? just asking.