FanNation - The Republic of Sport

The playoff proposal ain't what needs shootin' down. What needs shootin' are the BCS ***holes who won't let us have a playoff system to determine the national champ.

I'm stumped on how changing from 5 BCS games to 7 BCS games is bad for the BCS? If we have an 8 team playoff, we'd need to increase the BCS games by two. This would retain the "bowl" system but give the top 8 teams a chance to win it all. What is the problem?

playoff won't fiux anything, esp if only 8 teams get in, look at how many teams whine now about not getting to play in a BCS bowl and add a shot at a national championship game to it

if you don't want to see teams scheduling hard teams during the regular season then a playoff is for you...cal me old school but the way to win an undisputed national championship is by beating some top 20 out of conference teams

a playoff will equal more Florida v. Citadel match ups...enjoy

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 07:57 AM ET  04.23 by MountainGator

I'm stumped on how changing from 5 BCS games to 7 BCS games is bad for the BCS? If we have an 8 team playoff, we'd need to increase the BCS games by two. This would retain the "bowl" system but give the top 8 teams a chance to win it all. What is the problem?

Not sure an 8 team playoff gets the job done, if you're going to have automatic bids to the 6 BCS conference shamps. I'd go with a 10-team system, these 6 conference champs and 4 "at large" teams with a play-in round for the other 2 quarter final slots. Last year, Utah, Texas, Boise State, Alabama, Texas Tech, TCU and maybe Ohio State would have received consideration. If you could only pick two of these teams, and without using the hindsight of how they did in their bowl games, which two would you pick? Leave out one of the unbeaten teams? Leave out Texas?

Maybe you go with 12 teams. I don't know the exact balance to strike between including all legitimate NC contenders versus having as many different teams as possible play in bowls. Each elimination round means that certain teams play more than one bowl game, taking away opportunities for other schools. But I do know that we need some sort of system. Nothing against Florida's superb season, but Utah, Southern Cal and Texas will always feel they should have had a shot at the title.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 08:21 AM ET  04.23 by JRM74

Not sure an 8 team playoff gets the job done, if you're going to have automatic bids to the 6 BCS conference shamps. I'd go with a 10-team system, these 6 conference champs and 4 "at large" teams with a play-in round for the other 2 quarter final slots. Last year, Utah, Texas, Boise State, Alabama, Texas Tech, TCU and maybe Ohio State would have received consideration. If you could only pick two of these teams, and without using the hindsight of how they did in their bowl games, which two would you pick? Leave out one of the unbeaten teams? Leave out Texas?Maybe you go with 12 teams. I don't know the exact balance to strike between including all legitimate NC contenders versus having as many different teams as possible play in bowls. Each elimination round means that certain teams play more than one bowl game, taking away opportunities for other schools. But I do know that we need some sort of system. Nothing against Florida's superb season, but Utah, Southern Cal and Texas will always feel they should have had a shot at the title.

Unless you have a 64 team playoff, someone is going to cry foul. Look at the basketball selection each year. Everyone left out cries that they should have been in, so in that regard, I don't see how a playoff imporves the situation. Does a 2 loss OSU get bumped out for a 1 loss Boise? How about a 3 loss LSU vs a 1 loss San Diego State? Then there is the "why do we have to play an undefeated Oklahoma when Penn State plays a three loss ND, that's not fair". That's the fresh, new crap that would stew up. End the end, dissatisfaction will still reign.

What you need to do is get over the fact that there needs to be a singularly defined National Champion. Do you think LSU or USC thinks any less about their split NC? No, they don't.

Maybe this works, but the playoffs is the only real solution.

Nah... no play-offs needed... just reading the comments here is what drives me... I always love the discussions that go on after the bowls of who is number one... There is never a clear cut nat'l champion... sure Florida was number one according to BCS, but look, there is Utah out there with an unbeaten record and they just schooled a bigger Alabama team... as GatorBaitor says how do you justify your seedings?... more fun to just argue, and agree to disagree...

Utah and the Mtn West want a panel to select the two opponents, and they want an undefeated record to get preference over a one loss team. Utah did have a thrilling two point victory over Michigan, and also barely beat a solid Oreg St team. But I do not see a body of work here, given the preponderance of weaklings on its schedule, to justify the NC game. Utah just backed out of the Texas game. Their scheme is plain to see. Play a mediocre regular season schedule, then lobby for the NC.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 08:06 AM ET  04.23 by kyle4point0

if you don't want to see teams scheduling hard teams during the regular season then a playoff is for you...cal me old school but the way to win an undisputed national championship is by beating some top 20 out of conference teamsa playoff will equal more Florida v. Citadel match ups...enjoy

Or more Texas vs Louisiana-Monroe matchups.

I disagree. If the BCS conferences are guaranteed a playoff spot if they win their conference, then they are more likely to play a stronger OOC schedule knowing that they will still get a shot at the championship game in a playoff.

If we stick with this "old school" theory regarding ONLY unbeaten schools should be in the NC game, then schools will continue playing crappy OOC schedules. Who wants to risk it if an unbeaten BYU or Hawaii team gets the NC game and a one loss USC or Alabama team?

Also, what stops teams from changing conferences to almost guarantee a no-loss season? Can anyone honestly say that USC, OU, Texas, tOSU, Florida, Alabama, et al wouldn't go undefeated 9 out of 10 seasons if they played in Conference USA or the WAC (sorry BSU).

No, the old school way just keeps us in the same "who is undefeated" mentality. How many major bowl games have we all watched when an undefeated (and superior team according to the pundits) gets WACKED by a one-loss team from another conference? It happened too often in college bowl history.

If the "old school" way is so much better, why does every other major sport have a playoff?

Sorry for the typos.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 09:55 AM ET  04.23 by MountainGator

Sorry for the typos.

Typos? If we let a copy editor in here they would drive a wooden stake into my heart first.

I wouldn't be around to see what would happen to you guys.

Probably get your asses tickled with feathers or something of the sort. First offense type of thing.

I think the MWC has some teeth in this. They have had some top-tier teams over the last few years. I don't know that with the progress they have made they would be dumb enough to go softer OOC. Sure an 8 team deal would piss people off, but oh well. You want to get in??? Make sure you win your damn conference. If you don't then you are rolling the dice, and whatever happens, happens.

If the "at large" selection had been based on final (pre-bowl) BCS standings, an 8 team playoff system last year (assuming the 6 BCS conference champs are automatically in) would have included Texas and Alabama. A 10 team system would have added Utah and Texas Tech to the mix. Play-in seedings would have been Alabama vs Utah and Texas vs Texas Tech. God, I'd have loved a 2nd shot at Tech. Would have had my Michael Crabtree voodoo doll so ****ing full of pins that the guy wouldn't have been able to het out of his hospital bed.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 09:53 AM ET  04.23 by MountainGator

Can anyone honestly say that USC, OU, Texas, tOSU, Florida, Alabama, et al wouldn't go undefeated 9 out of 10 seasons if they played in Conference USA or the WAC (sorry BSU).

Hey, as a BSU guy I take no offense with that statement. Those are all top end teams. I would love to see BSU play in the Pac-10. Would they lose more often? Of course, the competition just got harder. But they would also get the chance to play some of these bigger schools at home. They would have an increased edge in recruiting (recruiting for the Pac-10 has to be easier than recruiting for the WAC). They would also have more money coming in. All those things lead to an improved program. I'm all for it, even if it means a step back in the short term.

much like the mythical unicorn...i'll believe it when i see it

I think any playoff format should strengthen the conferences by pitting conference champions -- ignoring polls and other standings. The wonderful thing about the BCS is that it allows teams like Wake Forest to compete and play their way into a major bowl game. The worst thing about the current BCS format is that it allows a team that did not even win its conference to go to the National Championship game. This happened in 2003 when Oklahoma lost to Kansas St in the Big-12 Conference Championship game -- but went to the NC game anyway, preventing a LSU v. USC showdown (Oklahoma lost to LSU, saving us the embarrassment of being crowned the National Champion while not even winning its Conference). In particular, having a conference championship game makes the whole season a lot more interesting. It is a huge advantage for the Big-12, the SEC and the ACC over the PAC-10, Big-10 and Big East. At any rate, the polls could be used seed conference champions so that perhaps the MAC, Mountain West, Sun-Belt, WAC and C-USA battle it out in the early rounds (i.e., the lesser bowls) -- while the higher ranked schools received byes. This would make every conference race have national importance, and would largely eliminate poll driven deterrents to inter-conference play. As for Army, Navy, Notre Dame and Western Kentucky (the only independents), let them join a conference or stay home!

JRM, just think on the name for a moment - Michael CRABTREE. CRABTREE. "Crab" as in wicked little lice. "Tree" as in erect object comprised of living tissues. There. Does that help you channel your magma in constructive ways?

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 11:01 AM ET  04.23 by Victor Welch

I think any playoff format should strengthen the conferences by pitting conference champions -- ignoring polls and other standings. The wonderful thing about the BCS is that it allows teams like Wake Forest to compete and play their way into a major bowl game. The worst thing about the current BCS format is that it allows a team that did not even win its conference to go to the National Championship game. This happened in 2003 when Oklahoma lost to Kansas St in the Big-12 Conference Championship game -- but went to the NC game anyway, preventing a LSU v. USC showdown (Oklahoma lost to LSU, saving us the embarrassment of being crowned the National Champion while not even winning its Conference). In particular, having a conference championship game makes the whole season a lot more interesting. It is a huge advantage for the Big-12, the SEC and the ACC over the PAC-10, Big-10 and Big East. At any rate, the polls could be used seed conference champions so that perhaps the MAC, Mountain West, Sun-Belt, WAC and C-USA battle it out in the early rounds (i.e., the lesser bowls) -- while the higher ranked schools received byes. This would make every conference race have national importance, and would largely eliminate poll driven deterrents to inter-conference play. As for Army, Navy, Notre Dame and Western Kentucky (the only independents), let them join a conference or stay home!

I like your take on this, Victor. One could preserve an exceptional invitation scenario for independents. For example, the Middies* go undefeated, including victories over top-tier teams, maybe even a future conference champion or two. The Bowl subdivision championship committee issues them an "invitation" to the championship series of games.

*Yes. I chose the Middies for this example as a deliberate provocation to our ND brethren.

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 11:10 AM ET  04.23 by Tin Man

JRM, just think on the name for a moment - Michael CRABTREE. CRABTREE. "Crab" as in wicked little lice. "Tree" as in erect object comprised of living tissues. There. Does that help you channel your magma in constructive ways?

He's a great receiver who I think will have an outstanding pro career. I have nothing bad to say about the guy. But dammit, would it have killed him, or his standing in the draft, if he'd just ****ing dropped that one ****ing pass?