Luke Winn: Playoff would have payoff

2008-09-10T07:13:43-04:00

2007-12-03T12:24:31-05:00

2008-09-10T06:39:53-04:00

2007-12-04T22:07:47-05:00

ugadawg024

No City 205938

actually, scratch Kansas off of that and put USC there 653848

2007-12-04T22:04:10-05:00

ugadawg024

No City 205938

This is my solution to all of this chaos: All major D1 schools take off all the cupcake teams like South Carolina State 2nd, BCS rankings are still used, but they only determine the first round of an 8 team playoff This means that all the teams that made bowl games still play in their respective bowls. This also keeps the importance of the regular season because if you lose 2, normally(as in not this year), you are out of the BCS and therefore the playoff. By BCS games, this year's playoff would be: OSU vs. Hawaii LSU vs. West Virginia VT vs. Kansas UGA vs. Oklahoma This solution is simple, but it mantains the importance of the regular season. 653819

2007-12-04T12:56:03-05:00

G$Buckeyes

Dayton 190963

Blindedbyf8th So by your reasoning the winner of a playoff is always the best team? There are so many examples of why you are wrong it would take me until Hawaii scheldules a decent team to name all of them. It is not just about having an interesting matchup it is also about who deseves to be there. Sure there is a lot of money involved and having a matchup that will draw ratings is important to college football. Just ask major league baseball how that Red Sox-Rockies series worked out for them. 650008

2007-12-04T10:58:44-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/911/0/thumb/oblivion.jpg 647 WI

RP-29

Oshkosh 9130

Parks, You made my point for me. Auburn got screwed because there wasn't a playoff, not because the BCS rankings don't work. The BCS rankings are an average of computer rankings and human polls. Fairness lies with BCS rankings for determination of participants and fairness lies on the field for results. 649071

2007-12-04T04:13:25-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/179/244/thumb/Miami_Eagles_Panther_3.gif 6772 AK

Prove It

Frellin Cold in 179544

Only homers think 12 teams are needed. Historically I don't see a need for more than 5 or 6 unless you start entertaining a lot of weak claims from lesser conferences that didn't paly anyone, a lot of 2 los teams that didn't win their conference, or rematches of conference champions that already played earlier in the year. Keep it toa small field, and you keep significance to the entire season as well as maintain significance in the other bowl games. 647835

2007-12-04T03:51:49-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/170/975/thumb/uh_logo_small.jpg 31 HI

blindedbyf8th

Honolulu 171275

and BTW, i never heard Georgia complain once about not being in the Championship game, I agree with Mark Richt, there should be a rule in the BCS where you have to win your conference to be in the NC, Only so it is clear, and so they can still move up in rank like they should have to #1 or #2, and not screw up the 'system' 647883

2007-12-04T03:49:19-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/170/975/thumb/uh_logo_small.jpg 31 HI

blindedbyf8th

Honolulu 171275

to the guy who said what would happen if Hawaii played Kansas, you said who cares no one would tune in to watch it... its people like you who are screwing up our college football 'process.' All you seem to care about is who tunes in to watch it, and you constantly think the same teams are going to be the only good ones, year after year. God forbid a team that wasnt that great ten years ago wins a national championship! If Hawaii and Kansas ended up in the Title game, then they ARE THE BEST TEAM in the country. Isnt that the point of the whole 'process?' Or is the entire BCS run by the colleges with money like it sometimes appears to be? Get your head on straight, try to understand the point of a playoff... DUH. 647832

2007-12-04T01:10:41-05:00

234

Just A Fan

Baton Rouge 42050

If you put more than one team in the playoff from a conference you will then devalue the system. Would you want team to potentilly beat a team twice then maybe lose to them in the NC? Say Missouri was put in the opposite side of the bracket from OU and Missouri met OU in the NC and won. THat would be just as bad as the system we have now. The best idea is to use the 6 BCS conference champions and two atlarge mid major conference champions. If a team is not the conference champion then the conference has declared that team to be no better than #2. The conferences for the most part already have a system to eliminate(round robin, or division tourny style) its own contenders on the field. This is why 2001 Nebraska, 2003 OU, 2007 KU, and 2007 UGA are not worthy of a NC. If they think they are a better than another team that was declared the conference champion then they should complain to the conference to come up with a better method not just ignore the system in place. If you accept the conference champions as the best of their conferene then you keep the regular season relevent and shrink the playoff field. No one says you can't rank the second best team higher than another conference champion, but you already have a system designed about play on the field that proves that they weren't #1 so they should give other out of conference contenders a chance. 647722

2007-12-04T00:56:02-05:00

dickieb

Berea 204186

Again, this comes down to money. Bowl games aren't going to go away, and the only way they'd go to some sort of rotating schedule for bowl games is if the Big 4 were to get the games. Based on the current Bowl schedules, it wouldn't work because of the lack of recovery time between games (when applied the the suggstion of a top 12 playoff with 1-4 receiving byes). Not to mention they tried the rotating thing and ended up creating the title game anyway. Creating a separate playoff bracket and assigning "lesser" teams to the existing bowls is going to work either, the Bowls will go nuts. Follow the money and you'll get the answer on your playoff. And seriously, the 11 conference champs. You really think the conference champs and, for the sake of arguement this year the best independent should go to a playoff? If you have anything left over from what you're smoking pass it this way, because you're either high or insane to think that the best of conferences like C-USA, the MAC or Sunbelt to name three, and let's not forget the best independent this year, deserve to go to a playoff over some of the #2 or #3 teams from the big conferences. And Jesus H. Christ, it's college football, the current system isn't perfect, and there's not a chance in hell they're going to switch to a playoff system, so let it go, and spend the time you would writing the "BCS powers that be" and take on a task that matter. And yes, posting this means I am a hypocrite for pointing out your flaws, but it's 12:53 AM and I'm not tired... 647683

2007-12-04T00:08:29-05:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/184/956/thumb/Bill_WH-100x100.jpg 6 XX

Elbonian

No City 185256

In this messed-up year, there are at least 14 teams with a legitimate claim to belong in a final "winner take all" tournament. I don't see any reason to truncate the bracket from 16 down to 12. And the current conference championship games could be the first round of this playoff system, with the conferences without championships hosting play-in for their own ranked teams or, if they don't qualify, any legitimate wild cards (like Hawaii). Then, all you need to do is find a way to wedge in one more round between the first Saturday in December and New Year's Day to be able to accomodate the cut from 16 to 8, and then 8 to 4, followed up by the proposed "plus one" format to get from 4 to 2 and 2 to 1. There is no reason at all why this can't be done if the obstinate jerks can be made to see the light. BOYCOTT THE BCS!! Spend all the time you would spend watching any BCS bowl game(s) writing letters to the BCS powers that be, the television networks that run these games, and the league commissioners stating that you, as a fan, are on strike until a decent 16 team playoff system is put in place. Make the threat and STICK TO IT! Low ratings and low purchases of advertised products will eventually lead to the desired result. The only reason we have the mess we currently see is because we, as fans, have continued to shovel money into the BCS coffers. If we stop doing that, we will get something different. And if we make our demands loud and often enough, we might even get what we really ought to have: a legitimate playoff system. 647555

There is only one logical way to decide the national championship in the Season of Endless Upsets, when there were these options available: * One undefeated team* Two one-loss teams* Ten two loss teamsThe solution is to grab one of the two-loss teams (LSU) and one of the one-loss teams (Ohio State, which gained status simply by having the final weekend off), and pit them together in a winner-take-all finale. The less-fortunate leftovers can fight for the scraps in consolation bowls, and the country will be content that we've conclusively answered the "Who's No. 1" question. Especially the undefeated team (Hawaii) that didn't even get a chance to play for the title, even though just one year ago, its conference's BCS rep (Boise State) beat one of college football's juggernauts (Oklahoma) in perhaps the greatest BCS game ever. This is all so incredibly satisfying for everyone involved.The slate of BCS games this January will do nothing but guarantee dissatisfaction among fans. So what if LSU pummels Ohio State in what will be a pseudo-home game for the Tigers? What will that tell us? If Hawaii beats Georgia, an SEC team that didn't win its own division much less its own conference, to go 12-0, how does that further the Warriors' bid for a share of the title? The BCS has worked in the past -- in the years where a clear Nos. 1 and 2 existed -- but we desperately need something that works every year. That's a playoff beyond the plus-one model. Put the 12 BCS-eligible teams into a field with first-round byes for Nos. 1-4, and let them duke it out. I'd much rather be worrying about the trivial controversy over who was excluded at No. 13 than who was left out at No. 3. 2279

The SI Staff

New York City 21244