Fed intervention in college football

[Veritas Arkansas]

I agree that the regular season in college football is the best regular season in any level of any sport.  But the problem is that it doesn't narrow the field down to two teams, one game, one championship.  That was the purpose of the BCS, but as everyone has seen since '98, it hasn't always played out that way.  Thus the need for a playoff.

What more logical way than to take the best teams in each conference and pit them against each other.  That makes the regular season just as if not more important than the current system if that is the only way to gain entrance into the "big dance."

Especially if you give "perks" to the teams that finish the best - seeding, home field advantage, et cetera. 

The whole "it will kill the regular season!" argument is entirely illogical. 

[Fisticuffs]

There is no need for a playoff system with more than 4 teams simply because there are no more than 4 deserving teams each year. And just because you win your conference doesnt give you a right to play in the national championship. Anything more than an 4 team playoff will destroy all that the college football regular season is! Im sorry but you obviously are having a difficult time understanding (which is why i suggested Phil Steeles article). And with an 8 team playoff comes many faults. In the regular season you could get by with 3 or even 4 losses and still make it to the playoff. With your plan of allowing all bcs conf champs a bid in the playoff is ridiculous. You realize a team can lose 7-8 games and still win their conference right? If THAT doesnt DESTROY the regular season then I dont kno what will. Not to mention OOC scheduling would become pointless. No more USC-OSU matchups or Ok St-UGA.

[Fisticuffs]

College football is different from every other sport because the regular season is the most important part whereas in every other sport, the post-season is the most important. Its not about how well you finish or getting hot at the right time. Its about staying consistent throughout the WHOLE year. The bowls reward teams for being consistent, thats the only purpose they serve and it is very important to keep this tradition. Thats what makes college football so awesome! The problem we have today is determining the true #1 at the end of the season. In the past 10 years, the BCS has been successful in doing that just twice, 2002 & 2005. Every other year of the BCS there has been 3-4 teams that deserved to be in that Nat'l Championship game. A 4 team playoff that features the top 4 ranked teams at the end of the regular season would have been successful in EVERY one of those years. But most importantly, a 4 team playoff would preserve the regular season. Only the teams that stayed consistent in the REGULAR SEASON would have made it to the playoff. There are 2 key reasons for NOT having an 8 team playoff. 1)There is no need simply because 8 teams do not deserve the oppurtunity 2)It would weaken the regular season.

[stchane]

And with an 8 team playoff comes many faults. In the regular season you could get by with 3 or even 4 losses and still make it to the playoff. With your plan of allowing all bcs conf champs a bid in the playoff is ridiculous. You realize a team can lose 7-8 games and still win their conference right? If THAT doesnt DESTROY the regular season then I dont kno what will. Not to mention OOC scheduling would become pointless.

Its about staying consistent throughout the WHOLE year. The bowls reward teams for being consistent, thats the only purpose they serve and it is very important to keep this tradition. 

In the past 10 years, the BCS has been successful in doing that just twice, 2002 & 2005. Every other year of the BCS there has been 3-4 teams that deserved to be in that Nat'l Championship game. A 4 team playoff that features the top 4 ranked teams at the end of the regular season would have been successful in EVERY one of those years. But most importantly, a 4 team playoff would preserve the regular season. Only the teams that stayed consistent in the REGULAR SEASON would have made it to the playoff. There are 2 key reasons for NOT having an 8 team playoff.
1)There is no need simply because 8 teams do not deserve the oppurtunity
2)It would weaken the regular season.

Which one is it?  How can a team lose 8 games and still be consistent enough to win a conference title?  Obviously the conference alignments would have to change so that a conference championship game was played in every conference.  That way your playoff really begins at that stage, which narrows it down to x# teams.  How does competing for a division title weaken the regular season? 

Not a rocket scientist, but the most consistent teams win the conference title almost 100% of the time.  You do understand the difference between a division and a conference right?  Winning the conference tournament provides the same opportunity it does for the winners of a conference tournament in basketball. 

The difference is that getting to the championship game in football requires that a team BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SEASON, thus not minimizing the regular season by any means.  Now if one of your cinderellas wins their division, and wins a conference championship despite losing 3 or 4 games, who doesn't love the underdog? 

The only people that would be hurt by only allowing conference champs to play for the national title are the stronger conferences; the SEC especially.  More than 1 SEC team would for sure be left out every year under this.  But every other conference would also be subject to the same limitation.  Its more fair this way. 

I would love to read Phil Steele's article on this, but I don't have it.  I doubt that was his argument because its heavily flawed.  Again, I'd love a link. 

[TexHog188]

I am in no way worried that a post season playoff will lessen the regular season.  The battle to win an outright SEC title will still be just as big, probably bigger, knowing that winning it will guarantee a shot at the national title via a playoff with other conference champions.  In today's BcS method, an undefeated Auburn team gets left out because of arbitrary human polls and geek algorithms.  I'll take 6+2 all day long. 

[Fisticuffs]

Which one is it?  How can a team lose 8 games and still be consistent enough to win a conference title?  Obviously the conference alignments would have to change so that a conference championship game was played in every conference.  That way your playoff really begins at that stage, which narrows it down to x# teams.  How does competing for a division title weaken the regular season? 

Not a rocket scientist, but the most consistent teams win the conference title almost 100% of the time.  You do understand the difference between a division and a conference right?  Winning the conference tournament provides the same opportunity it does for the winners of a conference tournament in basketball. 

The difference is that getting to the championship game in football requires that a team BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SEASON, thus not minimizing the regular season by any means.  Now if one of your cinderellas wins their division, and wins a conference championship despite losing 3 or 4 games, who doesn't love the underdog? 

The only people that would be hurt by only allowing conference champs to play for the national title are the stronger conferences; the SEC especially.  More than 1 SEC team would for sure be left out every year under this.  But every other conference would also be subject to the same limitation.  Its more fair this way. 

I would love to read Phil Steele's article on this, but I don't have it.  I doubt that was his argument because its heavily flawed.  Again, I'd love a link. 

You misunderstand, yet again.... Im saying in your stupid system of 6 conf champs and 2 at large you allow the possibility of a team with 7-8 losses to go on and win their conf title game. In the second line that you pointed out in bold im talking about the 4 team playoff: Only the teams that stayed consistent in the REGULAR SEASON would make it to the (4-team) playoff. So basically the teams that only allowed 1 and maybe 2 losses in the regular season that are ranked in the top 4. Now we cleared that up.... If you still do not understand im afraid I cannot help you. My suggestion is to go out and pick up a Phil Steele magazine and read his article "Bowls or Playoff" because he goes into such great detail that maybe even YOU can understand.

[stchane]

In the second line that you pointed out in bold im talking about the 4 team playoff: Only the teams that stayed consistent in the REGULAR SEASON would make it to the (4-team) playoff. So basically the teams that only allowed 1 and maybe 2 losses in the regular season that are ranked in the top 4. 

Yes; that is much clearer.  So basically what you are worried about is the OOC here?  (seeing as how so many teams are chomping at the bit to play big time OOC games and all...) 

Hardly anybody now schedules one, and assuming you have the conference title format, nobody would schedule more than 2.   The way around your concern is to have a seeding system for the playoff.  If you lose all 4 of your OOC games yet somehow manage to win your conference title, guess what seed you'll get?  If the higher seeded team gets a home game, how much more can the regular season not impact such a system? 

I don't know what the numbers work out to be... you put the 6+2 system in my mouth; I never said that.  If you also factored in strength of schedule, that would be an incentive to play these tough OOC games.  The argument against that is that scheduling tough OOC when your seed could be affected in such a big way is a huge risk.  But isn't it a huge risk in the current system anyway?  I mean 1 OOC loss and that could mean the end of the season BEFORE CONFERENCE PLAY EVEN BEGINS.  Seems like having conference champs play for the title would increase parity across college football as well. 

The only people I can see that would be against this is the cream of the crop right now, and the schools without a Conference Championship game.  The Big & Pac 10 both cling to their tradition, but the game of football has evolved over the years, and so should those conferences.  Adaptation breeds life. 

The fact that your whole season is a wash after 2 OOC games isn't fair either.  By allowing the conference champs to play in the playoff, every team in the country would know that they aren't out of it until (possibly) October.   There are only a select few who know that they are in a serious run for the title in October as it is today.  The penalty for not playing a hard schedule would come back to bite them in the ass too.  If an #8 seed went into a #1 seeds (the numbers are arbitrary) house and won, then I'd say the #8 seed was the better team anyway.   

[Fisticuffs]

Yes; that is much clearer.  So basically what you are worried about is the OOC here?  (seeing as how so many teams are chomping at the bit to play big time OOC games and all...) 

Hardly anybody now schedules one, and assuming you have the conference title format, nobody would schedule more than 2.   The way around your concern is to have a seeding system for the playoff.  If you lose all 4 of your OOC games yet somehow manage to win your conference title, guess what seed you'll get?  If the higher seeded team gets a home game, how much more can the regular season not impact such a system? 

I don't know what the numbers work out to be... you put the 6+2 system in my mouth; I never said that.  If you also factored in strength of schedule, that would be an incentive to play these tough OOC games.  The argument against that is that scheduling tough OOC when your seed could be affected in such a big way is a huge risk.  But isn't it a huge risk in the current system anyway?  I mean 1 OOC loss and that could mean the end of the season BEFORE CONFERENCE PLAY EVEN BEGINS.  Seems like having conference champs play for the title would increase parity across college football as well. 

The only people I can see that would be against this is the cream of the crop right now, and the schools without a Conference Championship game.  The Big & Pac 10 both cling to their tradition, but the game of football has evolved over the years, and so should those conferences.  Adaptation breeds life. 

The fact that your whole season is a wash after 2 OOC games isn't fair either.  By allowing the conference champs to play in the playoff, every team in the country would know that they aren't out of it until (possibly) October.   There are only a select few who know that they are in a serious run for the title in October as it is today.  The penalty for not playing a hard schedule would come back to bite them in the ass too.  If an #8 seed went into a #1 seeds (the numbers are arbitrary) house and won, then I'd say the #8 seed was the better team anyway.  

If you lose all 4 of your OOC games and win the SEC championship game with a record of say... 7-6, you truly believe that they are going to be ranked in the top 4 (or 8 for that matter)?

We both agree that college football needs a new way of determining the nat'l champ. A Plus One format would do just that. An 8 team playoff would be less effective and would diminish the importance of the regular season severely and that you cannot deny.

[RedSatinHog]

Let congress get involved in this and start mandating reforms on it, and you will likely see either a 16- or 32-team tournament to ensure that every D-1 conference in the country has an equal representation and play-in opportunities.

The NCAA has the opportunity to develop a tournament on its own.  Absent of doing that, what I just described above will become the rule of the day.  I know that will create heartburn for the fans of schools like OU and Nebraska who are used to automatic title game berths within the system that is currently being used, but it is what it is.

[Fisticuffs]

Heres how an 8 team playoff with 6 conf champs and 2 at large bids might end up:
USC (10-2) Pac-10 Champ
Ole Miss (8-5) SEC Champ
Florida (12-1) At Large
Texas (11-2) At Large
Missouri (8-5) Big XII Champ
Cincinnati (10-2) Big East Champ
Ohio State (12-0) Big Ten Champ
Maryland (8-5) ACC Champ

....Some very deserving teams in that list. And some... not so deserving. But who cares if Ole Miss, Mizzou, or Maryland lost 5 games in the regular season right? They won their conf championship games so they deserve to be in the playoff right? The regular season wouldnt matter because an 8-5 team made it into the playoff alongside a 12-0 team. Thats all i can say to help you to understand.

[RedSatinHog]

A Plus One format would do just that. An 8 team playoff would be less effective and would diminish the importance of the regular season severely and that you cannot deny.

How?

You are silly to believe this will in any way appease the elected officials who are now involved in this process.  The NCAA had the opportunity to reform the system, and all they did in the process was exactly what they have been accused of doing for years.

An 8-team playoff does nothing in terms of giving across the board representation when you consider that there are like 13 division 1 conferences.

[RedSatinHog]

Heres how an 8 team playoff with 6 conf champs and 2 at large bids might end up:
USC (10-2) Pac-10 Champ
Ole Miss (8-5) SEC Champ
Florida (12-1) At Large
Texas (11-2) At Large
Missouri (8-5) Big XII Champ
Cincinnati (10-2) Big East Champ
Ohio State (12-0) Big Ten Champ
Maryland (8-5) ACC Champ

....Some very deserving teams in that list. And some... not so deserving. But who cares if Ole Miss, Mizzou, or Maryland lost 5 games in the regular season right? They won their conf championship games so they deserve to be in the playoff right? The regular season wouldnt matter because an 8-5 team made it into the playoff alongside a 12-0 team. Thats all i can say to help you to understand.

Are you advocating using that same logic with the NCAAT in hoops?  After all, if the only teams you invite are champions in power conferences, Arkansas never plays for the national title in 1994.  Yeah, we were RS champs, but we lost in the semis of the SEC tourney to Kentucky that year.  I guess the regular season never meant anything, right?

[Fisticuffs]

An 8-team playoff does nothing in terms of giving across the board representation when you consider that there are like 13 division 1 conferences.

lol

[RedSatinHog]

lol

What are you lauging about?  At the end of the day, you still have no less than 5 conferences out there screaming about being excluded from the title equation by a system designed to allow only big conferences to compete for a national title.

In the scenario I named above, you eliminate that argument.  The BYU's and Toledo A&T's of the game get the chance to either put up or get their faces smashed in on the field of play.  Seed it just like you would the NCAAT with four separate regions, each final of which is hosted at traditional BCS sites, with a fifth site (presumably now including the Cotton Bowl) hosting the final four and title game on a rotational basis.  The lower-tier bowls would either be used as first or second round sites, or used as the glorified NIT that they really are in the first place.

It also eliminates the dilemna of puffing up a regular season record by rolling up huge scores on lesser opponents.  Schedule such games and it costs you in terms of whether or not you get in at the end of the year. 

[Fisticuffs]

Are you advocating using that same logic with the NCAAT in hoops?  After all, if the only teams you invite are champions in power conferences, Arkansas never plays for the national title in 1994.  Yeah, we were RS champs, but we lost in the semis of the SEC tourney to Kentucky that year.  I guess the regular season never meant anything, right?

First of all... this is NOT college hoops. If youve read anything you would understand that college football doesnt want to become anything like college basketball. Youre example of 1994 Arkansas is precisely why college football does not want to have a big time playoff. Instead of calling you an idiot ill just say this one last time... the college football regular season is why college football is so popular. One mess up and you might be out of the title hunt. You obviously just dont get it. Read more post less.

[RedSatinHog]

First of all... this is NOT college hoops. If youve read anything you would understand that college football doesnt want to become anything like college basketball. Youre example of 1994 Arkansas is precisely why college football does not want to have a big time playoff. Instead of calling you an idiot ill just say this one last time... the college football regular season is why college football is so popular. One mess up and you might be out of the title hunt. You obviously just dont get it. Read more post less.

Hey listen.  I don't think the MAAC champs and so forth have any real chance to win a national title against the bigger schools from bigger conferences, but what happened this past season with Utah and a couple of years earlier with Boys State are prime examples of why this argument is not going away.  I'd just as soon see them get their tails kicked and sent back to where they came from, but there are certain programs out there who have a tendency to make the most out of big opportunities.  The two aforementioned schools are examples of this.

I also don't buy into the whole idea that it diminishes the regular season at all.  Would you have us to believe that the regular season tilts between FSU and Florida, Georgia and GTech, or the like will suddenly become any less meaningful because there is a tournament on the horizon?  Please be serious.

[CCM]

the college football regular season is why college football is so popular. One mess up and you might be out of the title hunt.

You're looking at this from the perspective of someone that's in a BCS conference.  Talk about schedules all you want, but Utah didn't have "One mess up" and still didn't get to a title.

What makes a regular season worth less: "You can have a couple of losses and still get into the championship" or "No matter what you do, you're not getting to the championship"?

[Veritas Arkansas]

Heres how an 8 team playoff with 6 conf champs and 2 at large bids might end up:
USC (10-2) Pac-10 Champ
Ole Miss (8-5) SEC Champ
Florida (12-1) At Large
Texas (11-2) At Large
Missouri (8-5) Big XII Champ
Cincinnati (10-2) Big East Champ
Ohio State (12-0) Big Ten Champ
Maryland (8-5) ACC Champ

....Some very deserving teams in that list. And some... not so deserving. But who cares if Ole Miss, Mizzou, or Maryland lost 5 games in the regular season right? They won their conf championship games so they deserve to be in the playoff right? The regular season wouldnt matter because an 8-5 team made it into the playoff alongside a 12-0 team. Thats all i can say to help you to understand.

And you're still wrong.  Your main concern is that an 8-5 team makes the playoff, they could win their next 3 games and become national champion.

And to that concern I say, "so freaking what?"

Fresno State did it in baseball last year.  Remember the George Mason bball run a few years ago?   These stories are compelling and fantastic.

[Hornkiller]

Being candid - the real waste of this is a personal agenda of a fan whose team got looked over. It's not about fairness. Because in the end every plan has a flaw and every scenario is going to make someone unhappy.

Take the big dance for instance - you still have people complaining they didn't get in, even though we are talking 50-65th slots. The injustice of a team who barley had a .500 record winning the SW Jr College tournament and getting an automatic bid over a team that lost twice all year long. Or this team should have been a #1 seed & why does my #2 team from the SEC have to go to all the way to the Anchorage regional?

Say you have an 8 team playoff? Last year should Georgia got the at large bid for the SEC? Even though they didn't even win their division? Kansas leapfrogged Missouri who beat them for the Big XII North Title into the BSC when the Tigers only sin was losing to OU twice. A team Kansas didn't have to face in the regular season. (or the Big XII south runner up Texas) What if that was a playoff? Kansas fan will point to the Orange Bowl win over ACC champ Virginia Tech as justification. But is it really? The Pac-10 and Big 10 aren't going to go to a CCG which gives them an advantage over the SEC, Big XII and ACC. Illinois got in the BCS and not only did they not win their conference, they didn't even finish 2nd.

And yes SEC hardcore's are still going to pump their chest about how powerful the conference is and how the SEC should be allowed 3 playoff teams. What happens when an Arkansas team that loses in the last sec to say Bama in Tuscaloosa and then in OT to Florida in the CCG gets passed up by a one loss conference runner up like Texas Tech, Michigan or Arizona State? (If Florida and Georgia get the slots) The servers that house these message boards would crash like the stock market the moment that happens.

And what happens if this guy wins? From what I understand we go back to the old way of doing things. That's right: we could have two teams who are undefeated not playing each other due to the bowl tie-ins. Yeah the BCS is far from perfect but until the Pac-10 and Big 10 want to join the rest of us in the 21st century is probably as good as it gets. Or would you rather see Ohio State claim a share of a National Title without playing an SEC team?

The bottom line is this: nothing is going to be 100% fair to every team and every conference and there is always going to be some disgruntled fan, sports writer or congressmen trying to come up with a better way. At least better for their team.

Oh and it goes without saying: North Korea celebrated the fourth by testing long range nuclear missiles. If one of those hits the US we'll have bigger problems then the Utes not getting to play for a title. Sen. Hatch has bigger fish to fry then the SEC and Big XII. 

[stchane]

the college football regular season is why college football is so popular. 

This is a red herring.  What makes college football so popular is the fans that support each team.  In many cases, 1 college represents a whole state.  For example, Arkansas is the obvious school here.  However, Tennessee, Nebraska, West Virginia, Boise St., Illinois, Indiana, Ohio St., Rutgers, etc. etc. etc.  While there maybe multiple schools in the states mentioned above, the vast majority of people in these states follow these schools; therefore, the school becomes the states representative. 

That is what makes college football so popular (a major reason anyway).  The NCAAT is why college basketball is popular.  But there are alot more schools involved with that.  I do agree that the regular season must have meaning, but to say that the regular season is the only reason college football is popular is ridiculous.  You've gotta have a system where the regular season isn't meaningless (if its diminished, fine; but it has to have meaning), and there is a way of settling who is the best team on the field, instead of in a poll or a computer.

[Fisticuffs]

The problem: determining a nat'l champ. If you can solve that problem with a 4 team playoff then why do anything bigger than that?? You guys just want to see a big playoff with brackets and a bunch of teams. But thats not the answer. And thats also the reason we dont even have a 4 team playoff yet. The reason university presidents and commissioners rejected the idea of a 4 team playoff as soon as 2010 is because they were afraid it would evolve into an 8 team playoff and possible 16 team playoff. And the regular season (regardless what some of you think) was their argument that prevented any playoff from happening that soon.

[Veritas Arkansas]

The problem: determining a nat'l champ. If you can solve that problem with a 4 team playoff then why do anything bigger than that?? You guys just want to see a big playoff with brackets and a bunch of teams. But thats not the answer. And thats also the reason we dont even have a 4 team playoff yet. The reason university presidents and commissioners rejected the idea of a 4 team playoff as soon as 2010 is because they were afraid it would evolve into an 8 team playoff and possible 16 team playoff. And the regular season (regardless what some of you think) was their argument that prevented any playoff from happening that soon.

I don't think it can be done with 4 teams. 

FWIW, I wouldn't mind a 16 team playoff either - give EVERY conference champ an invite, + at larges.

I really wonder how naiive you are.  The reason presidents and commissioners don't want one is only because of $$$

[Fisticuffs]

I don't think it can be done with 4 teams. 

FWIW, I wouldn't mind a 16 team playoff either - give EVERY conference champ an invite, + at larges.

I really wonder how naiive you are.  The reason presidents and commissioners don't want one is only because of $$$

Money is not now nor ever was the problem.

[stchane]

Money is not now nor ever was the problem.

What do you think drives college football?  The players are just pawns.  The reason coaches make millions of dollars today as compared to 20 years ago is because how lucrative it is to have a winning team.  Beyond the fanbase of any particular team, you have tv contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the sponsorships of athletic apparel and bowl games. 

Its like Jamie Foxx said in Any Given Sunday, its playcism:  just the next good player to get that coach to his next bowl game.  To hell with the actual kid playing. 

If you can solve that problem with a 4 team playoff then why do anything bigger than that?? 

And if you can't?  There will always be that 5th team that will argue that they deserve a shot.  If any one of those 4 teams isn't the best team in their conference, then they don't deserve to be there:  period.  When K-State beat OU for the Big 12 title, and OU still played for the national title, was that not the biggest bunch of bullsh!t you've ever seen?  It was for me, and still is.  That result should never, never happen.  USC shoulda played LSU that year.  Speaking of LSU, when you got beat in the last game of the season, regardless if you won your conference or not, that disqualified you from playing for the national title the pre-BCS era.  Although I was happy the won a title in '07 to keep the title in the SEC, there was no way in hell that LSU should have gotten the chance to play for it all then. 

The question then becomes who is deserving to be in the playoff?  Is it the top 5,6,7, or 8 teams?  Is it the top 16?  I think 16 is too much.  8 is more reasonable.  4 is not enough.  10 would be fine with the top seeds on each side of the bracket getting a bye. 

Keep in mind that the problem here is the BCS puts the top 2 against each other for all the marbles to the exclusion of a possible undefeated team.  So what if there are 3 or 4 other 1 loss teams that deserve to play for it all too?  Then what? 

[Veritas Arkansas]

Money is not now nor ever was the problem.

Are you kidding me???

Why else do you think the PAC-12 and Big 10 want to keep the Rose bowl?

Why else do you think the bowls (ie, their sponsors) fight tooth and nail against a playoff?

[Fisticuffs]

Money is not the problem. A plus one format would make the same or more than the same system you moron.... It just adds one game, hence "plus one" format. You keep the bowls, the bcs bowls. The regular season wouldnt change. Where would this loss of money come from?

[Veritas Arkansas]

Money is not the problem. A plus one format would make the same or more than the same system you moron.... It just adds one game, hence "plus one" format. You keep the bowls, the bcs bowls. The regular season wouldnt change. Where would this loss of money come from?

Plus one has the exact same issues as the BCS now.  Which 4 teams get it?

Without some articulated standard, ie, winning your conference, guaranteeing a shot at a national championship, no system can survive scrutiny.

[Fisticuffs]

Plus one has the exact same issues as the BCS now.  Which 4 teams get it?

Without some articulated standard, ie, winning your conference, guaranteeing a shot at a national championship, no system can survive scrutiny.

Which 4 teams get in? The polls decide of course. The top 4 in the poll at the end of the regular season. No more than 3 or 4 teams DESERVE the chance anyway. I dont know whats so hard to understand about a plus one format... basically every college football analyst ive ever heard or seen says a Plus One is the next step. It solves the problem.. case closed. Nothing more than that is needed.

[Veritas Arkansas]

Which 4 teams get in? The polls decide of course. The top 4 in the poll at the end of the regular season. No more than 3 or 4 teams DESERVE the chance anyway. I dont know whats so hard to understand about a plus one format... basically every college football analyst ive ever heard or seen says a Plus One is the next step. It solves the problem.. case closed. Nothing more than that is needed.

Awesome, so last year, which 4 teams get in between:

USC, Bama, Florida, OU, Texas Tech, Texas, Utah, Ohio State, Pen State?

In order for the system to work, you HAVE to have some objective milestone which, if achieved, will guarantee that you get to play for the national title.

[Fisticuffs]

Awesome, so last year, which 4 teams get in between:

USC, Bama, Florida, OU, Texas Tech, Texas, Utah, Ohio State, Pen State?

In order for the system to work, you HAVE to have some objective milestone which, if achieved, will guarantee that you get to play for the national title.

Last year was a disaster. Nothing wouldve saved last year.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Money is not now nor ever was the problem.

Gotta disagree here with you. If the NCAA had a stake in the money derived from the BCS, we might have had play offs long ago. Bottom line is, after CCG's, the NCAA has no financial stake and that is why they continue to sit on their arses.

[Fisticuffs]

Gotta disagree here with you. If the NCAA had a stake in the money derived from the BCS, we might have had play offs long ago. Bottom line is, after CCG's, the NCAA has no financial stake and that is why they continue to sit on their arses.

Very true. But im not talking about that. A 4 team playoff that rotates around the bcs bowls is not changing anything in the post-season. All it does is add one game to determine a national champ with less controversy. The money would essentially be the same all around.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Very true. But im not talking about that. A 4 team playoff that rotates around the bcs bowls is not changing anything in the post-season. All it does is add one game to determine a national champ with less controversy. The money would essentially be the same all around.

Gotta tell ya, a four team play-off, two games, would not get me excited and shortly everyone would be "bitching" about that too. That is like putting on a band aid before you go swimming. Lasts for the short term, not for the long term. If there is to be a play-off, it has to be an expanded format, which of course is not going to happen at the Div I level.

That being said, poll the FCS(Div-IAA) coaches about whether they want to replace their system with something similar to the BCS and then be prepared to hear the howls of opposition.

It works at the FCS level because they don't count on the fan base traveling to sell tickets as much as the fan crazy Div I fans and more importantly, the TV package isn't as important. FCS can get away with it. Div I BCS can't.

[Veritas Arkansas]

Last year was a disaster. Nothing wouldve saved last year.

Sure it would have

8-team playoff (6 conference winners) + 2 at larges gives us:

OU (1 seed) vs. Cincinatti (8 seed)
Alabama (or Texas) (4 seed) vs. Utah (5 seed)
USC (3 seed) vs. Ohio State (or Penn State) (6 seed)
Florida (2 seed) vs. Virginia Tech (7 seed)

Or something along those lines.  The two at larges have a gripe, but they answer to them is "well, shoulda won your conference."  There would have been no dispute in this system who the eventual national champion was.

[stchane]

Sure it would have

8-team playoff (6 conference winners) + 2 at larges gives us:

OU (1 seed) vs. Cincinatti (8 seed)
Alabama (or Texas) (4 seed) vs. Utah (5 seed)
USC (3 seed) vs. Ohio State (or Penn State) (6 seed)
Florida (2 seed) vs. Virginia Tech (7 seed)

Or something along those lines.  The two at larges have a gripe, but they answer to them is "well, shoulda won your conference."  There would have been no dispute in this system who the eventual national champion was.

Exactly.  So you see fistcuffs, there was a way to fix last year.  You're 4-team format wouldn't have worked because like Muskogee said, its just a band aid.  If you want to "FIX" the problem, there has to be some OBJECTIVE criteria for gaining entrance into the playoff. 

The polls are anything but objective.  If ESPN can pick a Heisman winner, what impact do you think they have on the polls.  The best example of the polls being a complete wash is the preseason polls.  Nobody knows how good the teams are going to be before the season actually starts.  They just guess.  Those teams at the top have a distinct advantage over all the other teams because they won't fall as far when they lose 1 game, where an undefeated team may only end up at #5 at the end of the season.  Like Chris Rock used to say, "that ain't right."

[Sivad]

The U.S. Congress going to straighten out and run college football?
I believe I'll pass on that nightmare.
Who is going to be the new football czar?...Joe Biden?...Rev. Al Sharpton?...Sister Soulja?