How about DILLIGAS?

What I think most people don't understand is that the alternative to the current system is not a playoff

Playoffs?

Playoffs?

Can we declare this guy a terrorist and send him to Gitmo?

I mean he is using fear tactics to prevent change to what most people agree is a more fair and democratic system.

Seems to be terrorist to me.

How in the world will anyone lose out on a playoff system? The popularity alone (see: NCAA Basketball) would offset any goofy reasons they'll lose money.

Some state the tradition of the Rose Bowl and the like? Well, that went out the door once the BCS bowls started putting random teams in random bowls.

Plus, like everyone has proposed, the "Rose Bowl" would still the name of one of the games. Heck, they could probably easily make sure that one happens on Jan 1.

I just don't get it.

TFA: The possibility of bringing '88 back and going pure bowl system does not exist because people don't tend to like to turn off faucets that spout cash

That's a pretty good line.

Well, most of America is against you buddy. We will take you and your crappy system down. Don't worry.

The thing the MWC doesn't get, is that nationally, people don't care about their schools. The only reason people want them in bowl games is so they can cheer against the established football powers.

Hey Harvey,

The current system is a playoff. A shiatty playoff with no logical method for selecting the two teams to participate in said shiatty playoff.



/a vote for me is a vote for Kim Jong Il and Osama bin Laden wiping the BCS off the face of the planet

pion: The thing the MWC doesn't get, is that nationally, people don't care about their schools. The only reason people want them in bowl games is so they can cheer against the established football powers.

*cough* horseshiat *cough*

Marcus Aurelius: What I think most people don't understand is that the alternative to the current system is not a playoff

Playoffs?

Playoffs?

likely matchups last year if there was no BCS, reverting to traditional conference connections:

Rose Bowl: Penn State v. USC
Sugar Bowl: Florida v. Texas
Orange Bowl: Oklahoma v. Alabama
Fiesta Bowl: Utah v Ohio State
Citrus Bowl: Georgia v Virginia Tech
Gator Bowl: Cincinatti v. Florida State
Holiday Bowl: Oregon v Boise State

I don't know, they all look like pretty decent games to me. Cotton Bowl would have not changed (Ole Miss v Texas Tech), just to round out the traditional level one and two bowls.

Another slicker than owl shiat asswipe out of Lincoln, Nebraska. They don't call them the cornholers for nothing. These arrogant pieces of feces that control the BCS figure they will never be able to compete if they level the playing field for everyone, so they run their candy assed system that favors the big boys and pull this scarcely believable nonsense like this everytime they can. String them up by their thumbs and whip them with barbed wire, then tie concrete blocks to them and dump them in the nearest river, is what I say.

The idea that the current farked up beyond belief system is a greater money maker than a playoff system is a myth, perpetuated by sons of whores like this slimy piece of trash and his buddies in the NCAA bureaucracy. The real money for college football is in the television rights. Right now the money for the major bowl games are not as much as the money paid out for the NFL playoffs and Superbowl. Put a playoff system in and that money goes way up. They can still have all their second and third rate bowls, and that money will not change.

/Obligitory: YOU WIN FOOTBALL GAMES ON THE FIELD OF PLAY, NOT ON A FRIGGING PIECE OF PAPER.
//Until division I college football has a playoff system, it ain't about nothing

oldernell: How about DILLIGAS?

I much prefer DILLIGAFF

pion: The thing the MWC doesn't get, is that nationally, people don't care about their schools. The only reason people want them in bowl games is so they can cheer against the established football powers.

While there is some truth to this (I'm a Utah fan, but won't kid myself that we have the national draw of a Michigan or Florida), it's not just the MWC that is screaming for a playoff system. It's 90% of college football fans, regardless of school affiliation.

College football is all about money. The only thing the BCS may do next is designate the Cotton Bowl as the 5th BCS Bowl. And the Big East STILL won't get an autobid. And Notre Dame will STILL get a BCS bid as long as they go 9-3. And a 2nd non-BCS team will NEVER make it into one of those BCS Bowls.

It's all about money. The Big 10 is still holding out hope that ND will join them as the 12th school so they can host a conference championship that will bring in as much money as OSU-Michigan. And NO ONE ELSE will suffice, not Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, or Rutgers.

The SEC will lobby to get a 3rd team in the BCS. And they will, once the 5th BCS Bowl gets okayed. Because the SEC rules college football, and their fans will travel to Mars to see them.

/end rant

I'll put this up for debate: how many teams should a playoff be?

We'll start with 64 (65 with a play-in), since it's what most NCAA sports use. However, most other NCAA sports don't distinguish 1A and 1AA (Now FCS and FBS, I know). 64 is probably far too many. I'd argue that 32 is also too many. Also, this many games would extend the season far beyond what the NCAA wants.

16 is an interesting number. Most likely what would happen is that you'd have every conference champion and 5 wildcards. In this formula, winning your conference is rewarded, while strong overall performance is as well. If you're the #1 team in the country, having a first round against (likely) the Sun Belt's champion would be pretty nice, comparatively.

A 12 team formula would provide a bye week for the top 4 teams, which is a nice reward for playing well. This formula would ensure that mid-majors who perform exceptionally well get their opportunity, while not letting in too much of the riff-raff. Not every conference would be represented (likely), but a 8-4 team from the Sun-Belt arguably doesn't belong in such a playoff.

If it was an 8-team playoff, with all BCS conference champions guaranteed a spot, then I'm not sure how well that works. Some teams that arguably deserve to get in would be left out. If we take last year, those slots would likely go to Utah and Texas. Ohio State, Boise St (undefeated, mind you), and Texas Tech would all be left out in favor of... Cincinnati and West Virginia. Honestly, could you see the BCS agreeing to an 8-team tourney without guaranteeing BCS conference champions a spot? Furthermore, this system provides little incentive for winning outside of your conference. No bye week, most of the opponents are strong anyway, and overall BCS record only matters if you're a wild card team. (Consider this, Boise St went undefeated last year and wasn't invited to a major BCS game, which their are 10 slots for).

A plus-one system of 4 teams is, at-best, a slight upgrade to the current mess, and would exclude mid-majors just the same. A plus-one system this year likely would have given USC and Texas another chance, instead of the perfect Utah or Boise teams.

The major point of a playoff system is this: give every single team a shot at winning it all. As it stands right now, more than half the teams in the FBS start the season knowing they can't win the championship. That's simply wrong. The fact that a team can do everything it possibly can (Auburn in 04; Utah, Boise and Hawaii in recent years; etc.). There are advantages to the current system that must be accounted for (making EVERY game count in the regular season). In my opinion, a 12 or 16 team playoff is absolutely the best option.

QU!RK1019: TFA: The possibility of bringing '88 back and going pure bowl system does not exist because people don't tend to like to turn off faucets that spout cash

That's a pretty good line.

See this is what I don't get about that argument though. Because an 8 team, 7 game, 3 weekend playoff system somehow wouldn't make a pile of cash taller than Touchdown Jesus? You can count on one hand the sporting events that would be bigger than that: Superbowl, NFC divisional playoff weekend, World Cup, and the first two rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament. And really the NFL divisionals and March Madness might be questionable.

You've already got teams in the championship game waiting a good 30+ days after the end of their season to play the game. You've already got an system in the BCS that separates the top X teams from all the other bowl games, based largely on polls and computer rankings. You add at most two extra games for a team during that month long stretch. Tell me how this doesn't work.

The whole beauty of college football is that there isn't a playoff system. There are over a 100 D-1 schools, so it's a different situation than the NFL where there are roughly 30 evenly matched teams. College basketball has dealt with it via a 65-team single elimination tournament. One could argue that that's not a "true" playoff either (the NBA sure as heck doesn't run its playoffs that way). But it's wildly popular and lucrative and appears to be "fair", so no one questions it.

The good thing about college football is that every game matters. A LOT. I found that that fact is lost on NFL fans (especially the ones that never went to college). College football allows for speculation among the media and fans, allows schools to schedule weak or strong out of conference opponents, forces teams to win convincingly, allows certain schools to invest 10's of millions of dollars in facilities wile others invest very little, and allows ONE PLAY to change the course of a season (Just ask last year's Texas and Penn State squads). In short, what works for the NFL isn't always going to work for college football.

Is the BCS system perfect? Absolutely not. You can probably do better but an 8 or 16 team college playoff system would make college football look A LOT like the NFL. And for the NFL crowd this seems logical. But college football purists everywhere hope to hell this never happens.

Believe me, we're against you.

Division IIA has a playoff system and it works quite well, thank you very much.

How's this for a proposal, just off the top of my head:

32-team playoff. Top 2 teams from the Pac10, Big10, Big12, SCC, ACC, WAC, Big East, Conference USA, Mid-America, Mountain West, and Sun Belt each get in. 22 teams. Top team from the Independents gets in. 23 teams now. Last nine voted in by coaches. 32 teams.

Week 1 & 2 (last week of December and first week of January): Bring back the traditional conference bowl match-ups, (ex: Rose Bowl would go back to being Pac-10 champ vs. Big 10 champ). Or match it up so that the #1 from a rivalry conference meets the #2 from an opposite (Rose Bowl would then be Pac-10 #1 vs. Big 10 #2, Emerald Bowl would be Pac-10 #2 vs. Big 10 #1, i.e.)Rest of the first round after the traditional match-ups determined by other bowl games (Outback Steakhouse, Alamo, Liberty, ect.)

Week 3 (Second week of January): Field down to 16. 8 Games played at sites of Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl with 4 other rotating bowls.

Week 4 (Third Week of January): Field down to 8. 4 Games played at Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls.

Week 5 (Fourth Week of January): Field down to 4. 2 games played at sites rotated between the 4 'heritage' bowls.

Week 6 (Weekend of Superbowl Saturday) NCAA Football Championship played at Superbowl Venue on Saturday.

Seriously. The College Championship the day before the Super Bowl? Tell me that isn't a network exec's wet dream if whatever network gets the Super Bowl also automatically gets the Championship game as well.

downstairs: How in the world will anyone lose out on a playoff system? The popularity alone (see: NCAA Basketball) would offset any goofy reasons they'll lose money.

Some state the tradition of the Rose Bowl and the like? Well, that went out the door once the BCS bowls started putting random teams in random bowls.

Plus, like everyone has proposed, the "Rose Bowl" would still the name of one of the games. Heck, they could probably easily make sure that one happens on Jan 1.

I just don't get it.

That's the part I don't understand either. They could use every named bowl as part of the playoff. The stupid part is where they claim they "worry for the academics" of the players.

A 32 team playoff would go pretty quickly. I don't see why the big money wouldn't go for this.

jayhawk88: QU!RK1019: TFA: The possibility of bringing '88 back and going pure bowl system does not exist because people don't tend to like to turn off faucets that spout cash

That's a pretty good line.

See this is what I don't get about that argument though. Because an 8 team, 7 game, 3 weekend playoff system somehow wouldn't make a pile of cash taller than Touchdown Jesus? You can count on one hand the sporting events that would be bigger than that: Superbowl, NFC divisional playoff weekend, World Cup, and the first two rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament. And really the NFL divisionals and March Madness might be questionable.

You've already got teams in the championship game waiting a good 30+ days after the end of their season to play the game. You've already got an system in the BCS that separates the top X teams from all the other bowl games, based largely on polls and computer rankings. You add at most two extra games for a team during that month long stretch. Tell me how this doesn't work.

Oh yeah dude. I'm all for playoffs for many reasons. Something about that line just made me chuckle. That was hours ago, though. Re-reading it now I don't know why. :)

JJRRutgers: College football is all about money. The only thing the BCS may do next is designate the Cotton Bowl as the 5th BCS Bowl. And the Big East STILL won't get an autobid.

Um, the Big East does have a BCS auto-bid. The very fact that they do and the MWC doesn't is a part of the problem and shows how broken the system is.

The good thing about college football is that every game matters. A LOT.

How can anyone still make this argument? Even a cursory glance at the empirical evidence would tell you that this isn't true. If every game mattered then undefeated Boise State or Utah would've played for the championship. Clearly they played in games that didn't matter.

Gratch: JJRRutgers: College football is all about money. The only thing the BCS may do next is designate the Cotton Bowl as the 5th BCS Bowl. And the Big East STILL won't get an autobid.

Um, the Big East does have a BCS auto-bid. The very fact that they do and the MWC doesn't is a part of the problem and shows how broken the system is. shows how large of a tv market they are.

iamskibibitz: The whole beauty of college football is that there isn't a playoff system. There are over a 100 D-1 schools, so it's a different situation than the NFL where there are roughly 30 evenly matched teams. College basketball has dealt with it via a 65-team single elimination tournament. One could argue that that's not a "true" playoff either (the NBA sure as heck doesn't run its playoffs that way). But it's wildly popular and lucrative and appears to be "fair", so no one questions it.

The good thing about college football is that every game matters. A LOT. I found that that fact is lost on NFL fans (especially the ones that never went to college). College football allows for speculation among the media and fans, allows schools to schedule weak or strong out of conference opponents, forces teams to win convincingly, allows certain schools to invest 10's of millions of dollars in facilities wile others invest very little, and allows ONE PLAY to change the course of a season (Just ask last year's Texas and Penn State squads). In short, what works for the NFL isn't always going to work for college football.

Is the BCS system perfect? Absolutely not. You can probably do better but an 8 or 16 team college playoff system would make college football look A LOT like the NFL. And for the NFL crowd this seems logical. But college football purists everywhere hope to hell this never happens.

The problem is, undefeated teams from less powerful conferences (such as Utah last year) never get a chance to prove themselves. BCS is worse than before, Mr. College Purist, because now there is no acknowledgment of two undefeated 1-A teams, no co-championships, just one champion, and one shafted. I wait for three undefeated teams from three different BCS conferences entering bowls so people like you are forced to see the problem.
And as for your 'every game matters theory', every game does matter in a playoff, and the past three national champions have a loss.

varmitydog: ...Floridian whining...

Somebody must still be butthurt over '94 or '95.

Gratch: the Big East does have a BCS auto-bid. The very fact that they do and the MWC doesn't is a part of the problem and shows how broken the system is.

the realigned big east has only lost 1 BCS game
i'm not sure your point holds any water

catatonicsrus: I wait for three undefeated teams from three different BCS conferences entering bowls so people like you are forced to see the problem.

It did happen in the 2004 season. Auburn was held out of the bcs championship because they had the typical SEC out of conference schedule of cupcakes and fairies. Oklahoma and USC had both had out of conference schedules that included BCS conference teams. Wasn't really hard to determine the who should be in the game based on that, but SEC fans are butthurt to this day for whatever reason. Don't like the result? Schedule someone of note, kind of like Tennessee and Georgia have been doing(credit where credit is due). I want a year where Florida goes undefeated with two other BCS teams and doesn't get in because they never travel out of state for an OOC game

lolmadillo: the realigned big east has only lost 1 BCS game
i'm not sure your point holds any water

The MWC has lost no BCS games and the WAC has only lost 1 BCS game. I'm not sure your counter-argument holds water.

Speedbts alt: Gratch: JJRRutgers: College football is all about money. The only thing the BCS may do next is designate the Cotton Bowl as the 5th BCS Bowl. And the Big East STILL won't get an autobid.

Um, the Big East does have a BCS auto-bid. The very fact that they do and the MWC doesn't is a part of the problem and shows how broken the system is. shows how large of a tv market they are.

What I meant was that the Big East doesn't have a autobid with a specific BCS Bowl:

Rose: Big 10-Pac 10
Sugar: SEC
Orange: ACC
Fiesta: Big 12

This makes it easier for them to one day take away the autobid from the Big East. And if there was a 5th BCS Bowl, the Big East still wouldn't have gotten one. If the West Side Jets Stadium been built, which had the potential to the Big Apple Bowl and the 5th BCS Bowl, then perhaps the Big East would have received that.

iamskibibitz: The good thing about college football is that every game matters. A LOT.

Unless you are one of those pesky mid-major teams that have no shot at the NC. Then none of the games really matter. If every game matters, please explain how Ohio State getting in with 2 losses over an undefeated Boise State that biatchslaped Oregon at their house.

Just curious -- why don't we ask the coaches and players? They're the ones that have to commit the time, risk the injuries while looking toward an NFL payday, etc. Seems that if the teams were on board, a playoff system would get done in a hurry.

/A playoff system shifts what people can biatch and moan about.

Speedbts alt: Gratch: JJRRutgers: College football is all about money. The only thing the BCS may do next is designate the Cotton Bowl as the 5th BCS Bowl. And the Big East STILL won't get an autobid.

Um, the Big East does have a BCS auto-bid. The very fact that they do and the MWC doesn't is a part of the problem and shows how broken the system is. shows how large of a tv market they are.

If the system determines who gets to play in the big money games solely based on TV markets and not what happens on the field, then yeah, I'd say that's a pretty damn broken system.

This might get flamed into oblivion, but...

What about if Div I ball was tallied like soccer? That is, you have a win/loss table, with wins and losses worth x points, tallied form within your conference. In this scenario, you would only play conference teams (no more Florida playing against NW Idaho Tech), so that puts huge emphasis on regionalism and the conference. Then, at the end of the season, the top two points leaders from each conference get seeded into a national playoff, with seeds chosen by bingo ball. Let them fight it out in a real playoff until we have an undisputed winner.

A huge pro of such a system is that even if your team doesn't go to the national playoff, you still have an interest as your conference gets two teams to root for. The money spigot will increase in volume, all of the complaints of the BCS are resolved, and Tebow can still fart pixie dust.

As a general note, the only way for CF to be treated as a real sport is if "bowl tradition" and "purists" take a hike. There's way more money to be made through this suggested system, and will bring parity to the sport in general.

thoughtcancer: As a general note, the only way for CF to be treated as a real sport is if "bowl tradition" and "purists" take a hike. There's way more money to be made through this suggested system, and will bring parity to the sport in general.

Yeah, because no one thinks of college football as a real sport. Nosirree. It's just at deaths door, just like hockey and soccer.

80,000 - 100,000 people don't pack numerous stadiums across the country every Saturday during the fall. It doesn't have traditions going back over a hundred years for some schools. Nope, not a sport at all.

And really, answer me this. Why the hell do you care? Do you play? No? Then what's in it for you other than maybe some tenuous emotional link to "your team" winning it all? Yay Us! Your overwhelming sense that somewhere someone may be doing something that is not 100% logical? Does that bug you so much? Would your enjoyment of the game really be enhanced so much by some rigid progression of a playoff system?

thoughtcancer: There's way more money to be made through this suggested system, and will bring parity to the sport in general.

When there are arguments that bash the BSC for being in it "only for the money" I'm endlessly amused when the playoff-obsessed's parting argument is "it will bring in more money".

rka: thoughtcancer: As a general note, the only way for CF to be treated as a real sport is if "bowl tradition" and "purists" take a hike. There's way more money to be made through this suggested system, and will bring parity to the sport in general.

Yeah, because no one thinks of college football as a real sport. Nosirree. It's just at deaths door, just like hockey and soccer.

80,000 - 100,000 people don't pack numerous stadiums across the country every Saturday during the fall. It doesn't have traditions going back over a hundred years for some schools. Nope, not a sport at all.

And really, answer me this. Why the hell do you care? Do you play? No? Then what's in it for you other than maybe some tenuous emotional link to "your team" winning it all? Yay Us! Your overwhelming sense that somewhere someone may be doing something that is not 100% logical? Does that bug you so much? Would your enjoyment of the game really be enhanced so much by some rigid progression of a playoff system?
thoughtcancer: There's way more money to be made through this suggested system, and will bring parity to the sport in general.

When there are arguments that bash the BSC for being in it "only for the money" I'm endlessly amused when the playoff-obsessed's parting argument is "it will bring in more money".

To point 1: Yes, it would. Bowl season is great because there are tons of games. But I hate that the #1 and #2 sit around for a month getting rusty. It makes for crappier games.

As for point 2: That's because it demolishes THE ONLY argument to keep the BCS system in place. It's more of a "look you retards, you won't listen to anything else that makes sense, so just look at the bottom line, at least."

rka: thoughtcancer:
When there are arguments that bash the BSC for being in it "only for the money" I'm endlessly amused when the playoff-obsessed's parting argument is "it will bring in more money".

Well, since money is the only thing that matters to the BCS, it only makes sense to bring it up in any argument for a playoff system.