Quote from: Stephen072774then the clear advantage would be an independent team who didn't have a conference championship.

i mentioned independent team only because of notre dame. the reason you can't leave out notre dame is reason being they're one of the premier college football program and they have the potenital to be the top 5 team year in and year out.

i couldn't care less if WAC or Conference USa were included but i suppose that's being fair. there's a good reason why they're in those conferences.

also one thing you can do is force notre dame to join a conference. the only reason they're not part of bcs is greed. they're getting $60 million from nbc. if you want to play for the national championship, joing a conference like everyone else!

and yes, notre dame will be excluded from the bcs soon

I think the main issue here is that AS MUCH as possible should be settled on the field, not in polls or computer algorithms.  A short playoff accomplishes this without botching up the lucrative bowl system currently in place.  I know I would be glued to many more post-season games were we to have a playoff system.

Some of us seem to be too concerned about the second place teams from good conferences.  I never said that second-place conference teams shouldn't be considered for the at-large slots, but much like the NFL, only 1 team per division (in the case of college football, major conference) is guaranteed.  The rest can be left up to the same lame-ass selection processes and formulas we have now.  My point is that polling and computing to try and capture the best team in the nation with a selected set of 2 teams is not always possible.  With a sample set of 8 teams selected in such a manner, the odds are that the best team in the country is somewhere in the mix and has the chance to prove themselves on the gridiron.

Quotealso if you just lost in a conference championship, what's the point in going to playoff, when you've already proven that you're not not good as the conference champion.

You mean like Oklahoma in 2003 when it lost to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game but was still ranked no. 1 in the BCS standings and lost to LSU in the BCS title game? USC was named AP national champion, and now announcers on ABC and ESPN, co-participants in the BCS, say USC is going for its third national title. So they're nullifying their own championship game of 2003.

If you have a playoff, all conference champions should be included. Should Utah at 12-0 been left out of a playoff last year, if one had existed, because it doesn't play in a major conference? What could be better for TV ratings than an underdog like Utah making a run through a playoff like my alma mater NC State did in in the NCAA basketball tournament in 1983?

Quotei mentioned independent team only because of notre dame. the reason you can't leave out notre dame is reason being they're one of the premier college football program and they have the potenital to be the top 5 team year in and year out.

i couldn't care less if WAC or Conference USa were included but i suppose that's being fair. there's a good reason why they're in those conferences.

This may sound like I'm anti-Notre Dame. I'm not, but I do think Notre Dame gets preferential treatment that's not always deserved by on-field performance.

Look at last year where Utah of the Mountain West was 12-0 including a Fiesta Bowl win, 35-7, over Pittsburgh. Notre Dame was 6-6 including an Insight Bowl loss to Oregon. The last time Notre Dame finished the season ranked in the AP poll was 2002, at 17th after a Gator Bowl loss to NC State. The last time it was in the top 5 was 1993 when Notre Dame finished no. 2 to Florida State. Since then, Brigham Young in 1996 and Utah in 2004 have finished in the AP top 5. So it looks like non-BCS conferences put teams in the top 5 more often than Notre Dame gets there.

Historic AP polls

Another reason I'd like to see a playoff would be to get conferences back to 8 or 9 teams and undo the ACC expansion that's ruined the round-robin basketball format where every team played every other team home and away every year. I like having Va. Tech in the conference but can do without Miami and Boston College.

One more friendly disagreement:

Quote16 teams IS too many. if would take a month of playing every week to determin the the national champion.

What's wrong with that? Bowls currently start a few days before Christmas and last until Jan. 3 or 4. A 16-team, four-round playoff would be over on New Year's Day. So a playoff would be over sooner than the current system.

A four-round playoff works for Div. 1-AA and Div. II and, like I said before, you don't see football players flunking out of William & Mary because they played too many games. Who complains about a month of NCAA tournament basketball games?

Quote from: dbNnc

Quotealso if you just lost in a conference championship, what's the point in going to playoff, when you've already proven that you're not not good as the conference champion.

You mean like Oklahoma in 2003 when it lost to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game but was still ranked no. 1 in the BCS standings and lost to LSU in the BCS title game? USC was named AP national champion, and now announcers on ABC and ESPN, co-participants in the BCS, say USC is going for its third national title. So they're nullifying their own championship game of 2003.

If you have a playoff, all conference champions should be included. Should Utah at 12-0 been left out of a playoff last year, if one had existed, because it doesn't play in a major conference? What could be better for TV ratings than an underdog like Utah making a run through a playoff like my alma mater NC State did in in the NCAA basketball tournament in 1983?

yes, oklahoma did not deserve to play for the national championship. they basically got a second chance.

BUT it's not simple as it may look. maybe Oklahoma knew they could lose that game and still play for the national championship. or just just got lucky.

Quote from: dbNncOne more friendly disagreement:

Quote16 teams IS too many. if would take a month of playing every week to determin the the national champion.

What's wrong with that? Bowls currently start a few days before Christmas and last until Jan. 3 or 4. A 16-team, four-round playoff would be over on New Year's Day. So a playoff would be over sooner than the current system.

A four-round playoff works for Div. 1-AA and Div. II and, like I said before, you don't see football players flunking out of William & Mary because they played too many games. Who complains about a month of NCAA tournament basketball games?

first, let's not even try draw comparison to college basketball. you could have 128 team tornament, it would be fine. it's basketball.

as for divsion ii playoff, they get no support from the network and sponors (compare to the bowl games). so it's financially important for them to have many round as possible. also, for division ii players, injuries are not a huge factor since majority of them won't be playing on sundays. furthermore, there are a lot more at stake in division i champioship (we're talking tens of millions of dollars). so you would like to play minimum number of games if you're the players.

and like i said before, there alread a system (conference championships) the supports 8 team playoffs.

Fun discussion, not trying to argue or get anybody mad...

QuoteBUT it's not simple as it may look. maybe Oklahoma knew they could lose that game and still play for the national championship. or just just got lucky.

ESPN and others reported before the KSU-OU game that regardless of the outcome OU would still lead the BCS standings.

Quoteand like i said before, there alread a system (conference championships) the supports 8 team playoffs.

The BCS Web site itself lists 11 Div 1A conferences; only six are guaranteed spots in the BCS games. So its not obvious where the other two teams would come from in an eight-team playoff. Thus, having all 11 conference champions plus 5 at-large teams that could include Notre Dame if the Irish are good enough makes more sense.

Quoteas for divsion ii playoff, they get no support from the network and sponors (compare to the bowl games). so it's financially important for them to have many round as possible. also, for division ii players, injuries are not a huge factor since majority of them won't be playing on sundays. furthermore, there are a lot more at stake in division i champioship (we're talking tens of millions of dollars). so you would like to play minimum number of games if you're the players.

I doubt many if any Div. 1-AA or Div. II teams make money from football or any other sport. I'd say fewer than half of the 117 Div. 1-A teams make money from football, and several each year lose money going to lower-tier bowls that few fans attend and few people watch on TV. The majority of Div. 1-A players won't be playing professional football, either. Most seniors who have hopes of playing pro ball participate in all-star games such as the Senior Bowl, so the concern they might get injured if they play too many games must not be that great. I would guess most would like the exposure a tournament would give them, like the basketball players get in the roundball tournament.

Quotefirst, let's not even try draw comparison to college basketball. you could have 128 team tornament, it would be fine. it's basketball.

The university presidents' public argument against a football playoff is it would take athletes out of class. It's one game a week on a Saturday, and the semester would be over for the last two rounds of a four-round playoff (for those schools on the semester system). The NCAA basketball tournament is two games each week -- a weekday and a weekend day in the middle of the spring semester -- and you don't hear any university presidents complaining about that.

dude, basketball is not football. the recoup time for football is 1 week at minimum!

the reason for not having playoff is money+pride=greed!

a lot of the player from big programs would goto the nfl. i'm not talking about entire dividion i teams. i'm talking about teams who has legitimate chance of win the national championship. the are not significant in this particular arugment.

again, there a reason why bsc is only including 6 major conferences. do you really think a team from the Mountain West, MAC, WAC or Sun Belt has a chance of winning the national championship? the answer is NO. if the school in thse conferences have good enough programs, they wouldn't be in those conference in the first place. it's seldom that the best of thems from those conferences get ranked. even if they go undefeated, it's not same as usc going undefeated. currently, #20 tcu is the only ranked team from non major conferences (hint: they have no chance of beating top ranked teams).

we just don't need to clutter up the playoff.

BCS is BS is the truth.

The BCS is designed to force all of the major conferences to play along with the ultimate greed machine, the NCAA. This is the same ruling body that said that a certain pro and US Olympic Skier had to give up all endorsements (and basically stop skiing) in order to play Receiver for Colorado. This is the same conference that made $10 million off sellling Mike Williams jerseys when he was a Fresh. but encourages the NFL to keep younger players out of the NFL to force them to play in the only other major football league the NCAA.

All other divisions of college football including D1AA have playoffs, but D1A has bowls. The reason, the NC double Ass wholes (to quote the program) make millions of dollars off of every bowl game. In order to keep making the same amount of money on the bowl games they need to get good teams to go to the bowls. I say, why don't you make the Independance and Seattle Bowls, round 1 of a 16 team playoff, then make the mid-bowls like the Holiday middle round playoffs, and rotate between the Rose, Orange, Cotton etc... for the final 4 and Championship. This is exactly how it works for all other divisions.

However this will never happen. Another reason why this won't happen is because of greedy/crappy coaches who don't want to play in a playoff system. Teams like Florida/FSU/Texas/USC/NotreDame all benefit from human polls because they're usually in them year-after-year. This is how they stay on top. They get into major bowls and that gets them on T.V. They go and recruit and tell young kids, "look come to my school I've been in a major bowl every year for the past decade." However, if they have a playoff, then more teams get the same exposure. Also, those big team/coaches know that they can usually get a good performance out of their teams in one game, especially when they have 1 month to prepare. To win a college football playoff you have to be good and get lucky (no injuries playing tough competition each week.) This is hard for coaches because it adds more stress, in that they have to put on a good show for a national audience every week. If USC had a bunch of injuries and then lost to school that was ranked lower then them, it would look bad for USC. This would impact recruiting and so some coaches favor the bowl system.

Our best bet for a playoff is for teams like V-Tech, who will only get into the #2 spot if USC or Texas loose and they win all remaining games, keep on getting ripped off. Either way, I think that the stupid NCAA will hang onto the Bowl system for as long as possible. Remember when teams go to bowls they get gifts, have bowl sponsored meals, team events, etc.... One year the Huskies got to go to the Playboy mansion. Now that's pretty sweet, but imagine what the NCAA big-wigs are getting from the sponsors?? I'm guessing they get lots of great stuff and will don anything to hang onto that.

PLayoff would be better for competition, for College Football Fans, for Vegas, for the players, everyone, except the NCAA and Coaches.

gifts are not the only thing schools receive...high profile teams would get upwards of $12- $19 milliion just for participating in bowl games. that is a lot of money! why would anyone want to change that...

last year, college bowl games generated revenue of about 1.1 billion for the cities that hosted them.

Quote from: JetSwingi will say this though about ranking. no matter how you look at it, polls are subjective and bias. whereas, the computer ranking aroun more objective. thus, it's more fair.

we can all agree that the ranking system is bull (in determinaing the national champion). so if you can stay at top two positions, you have nothing to complain about.

I refer you to the 2004 Auburn season.  From http://www.fanblogs.com/sec/004779.php dated January 10, 2005.

After pundits spent the last week or so beating up on Auburn for it's weak schedule, John Pruett from The Huntsville Times checked the official NCAA stats and found Auburn got a bum rap. In fact, Auburn had the fifth toughest schedule in the country.

Despite playing Louisiana-Monroe (5-6), LA Tech (6-6), and DI-AA The Citadel, Auburn finished as the highest rated BCS team in strength of schedule by the NCAA official statistics.

Texas A&M was #1, followed by North Carolina, Arizona, Arizona State, and Auburn. Where did the BCS title game teams rank? Oklahoma's schedule was ranked 11th and USC's was 18th.

Playoffs would at least have given AU a shot at a championship.

VT should get kicked out of the BCS for the gawd awful jerseys they wore against BC.  WTF?

hey i was at the game...were we lound or what?!?

they totally dominated the game in stats but the score really didn't reflect that.

forget the jersey...i think they did to get a new color scheme  :mrgreen:

Last night I saw G Love and Special Sauce in concert.  The band that opened for them was called Virginia Coalition.  They were awsome.  You Virginia guys ever hear of them?

Quote from: Jake DVT should get kicked out of the BCS for the gawd awful jerseys they wore against BC.  WTF?

+1  

I think there should be an NCAA rule regarding symmetry with uniforms.  All these uniforms with color swatches all over in weird places just work like camoflauge.  I can't make anything out.

At least they didn't wear the all-orange uni's like they did back in '94 against UVA.

While we've been debating how to arrive at a playoff I think the one thing we would all agree on is that any type of playoff who be better than the current bcs bowl system.  But the question has to be asked, go you guys really think the system will change?  I hate to be pessimistic, but i don't... too much money.

Stephen07 I don't think it will change either because of the money!

I think if it changes it will be a slow process.  Herbstreit's "+1" system which is essentially just a two round playoff (4 teams) might catch on because it only requires one extra game be added to the bowl system.  In several years, that system may expand again, but it would be a slow and gradual change if it happens at all.

That's more like it.