OMG! How in earth can they do a playoffs in college football? Don't they know College football is all about the tradition of having the 47th and 66th best teams playing in the Little Ceasars Pizza Bowl!?!?

OK, back to seriousness.... I have no idea and I haven't looked it up, but, how do they determine the seedings... is that based on some FCS rankings? Appears like they don't automatically take all the conference champs, since I noticed a few of them aren't in the bracket (Ivy League and SWAC to be particular).

I only need one reason....Appalachian State.

dletter: OK, back to seriousness.... I have no idea and I haven't looked it up, but, how do they determine the seedings... is that based on some FCS rankings? Appears like they don't automatically take all the conference champs, since I noticed a few of them aren't in the bracket (Ivy League and SWAC to be particular).

Ivy League and SWAC don't play in the playoffs (Ivy League I know is due to academics, SWAC...maybe same thing? I'll be nice and say it's that. Might just be because it's not worth it.) There are only a few conferences that get auto-bids.

Last year my EWU Eagles were the No. 1 team in the country going into the playoffs and got a 5 seed. It's full of just as much dumb sh*t as anything (teams lost anyway, and we had every playoff game at home until the title game though, which was neutral site).

It's also experienced playoff creep like every other playoff - it was 8, then 16, now it's 20 teams. This is part of why I'm against a playoff in FBS - playoffs always lead to playoff creep and adding more and more teams because the tournament is even moreso about money than picking a champion than the BCS is.

I like NDSU, they had a great contingent in Cheney last year and I think they were the best team we played on our way to the championship. Since the Eagles couldn't repeat due to injuries, go Bison!

/it'll be a cold day in hell before I root for Montana/Montana State

Gosling: But at the same time, fans get subjected to dozens and dozens of worthless, boring postseason exhibitions anyway

No one's forcing you to watch. If you don't like two straight weeks of college football games every night, then you're not much of a college football fan.

Gosling: I hear this incessantly up here where I live. WHY SHOULD I FARKING CARE ANYMORE?! The game means jack squat now.

Because it's the mf'in' Rose Bowl. Why should anyone care that you're a semifinalist in a playoff if the only thing that matters is winning the championship?

Yanks_RSJ: I agree. The old way was far superior in that multiple bowls could have a say in the national champion. The BCS has minimized every other bowl to irrelevant status

And it was more fun.

And you know what? It's football. It's supposed to be fun. You're not supposed to HAVE to be a champion or else you're a failure.

What's fun is that people will chastise me with the "participation ribbons for everyone" generation comment when that system pre-dates the other leagues and their playoffs.

In fact, most leagues in the early days had things decided by the regular season (when they had small enough numbers to do so - when dealing with as many entities as college football did, the only way to do it was to have a vote after the season was over). Playoffs were just affixed to the end of seasons to make money. Playoffs have nothing to do with crowning champions and everything to do with being a money grab.

Somewhere along the line, people forgot this and started "thinking" (in quotes because they actually don't think, they just regurgitate the same "everyone does it" lines) that playoffs were the only legitimate way to determine a champion.

UNC_Samurai: I despise the NFL preseason. I must not be much of a pro football fan.

Why do you hate it? There's a legitimate argument that the goal of those games isn't even to win, but to see development of younger guys and get some game experience for players. That's nice and all, but more comparable to an intrasquad game in college.

If you watch NFL football but you hate watching teams that aren't going to make the playoffs, then no, you're not much of an NFL fan.

Gosling: Who said I did watch? I certainly never said anything to give you that impression, did I?

Then you aren't "subjected to" anything. Stop being melodramatic.

Gosling: The Rose Bowl used to mean something. Now it means nothing.

It still means something.

Just a lot less. I'm fine with getting rid of the BCS and going back to the bowl system.

/you realize that all sports are nothing but exhibitions, right?

Gosling: It actually depends on the importance attached to those sports by the people watching them. They matter as much as we wish them to matter.

Exactly.

Which means that if we weren't overwhelmed with retards (hurr more than one possible great team is confusing), then no one would care that there isn't a playoff.

Gosling: You cannot possibly be arguing that the title picture this year is that cut-and-dried. I don't care what ESPN is pretending. LSU and Alabama are not the clear-cut two best teams in the country regardless of the results of the conference championships. To attempt to argue such a thing, that Arkansas, Oklahoma St., Stanford, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Houston, et al. are just so far back that there can be no reasonable debate is absurd on its face.

And a playoff wouldn't show that any of them are better than the other. I'm perfectly comfortable with multiple champions.

And a one-and-done tournament is the stupidest possible way to determine a champion - you might as well not even have a regular season for all the importance it has.

Go Ohio State!

UNC_Samurai: No, I hate watching games that don't count towards anything. Bowl games and preseason games are exhibitions, but the NCAA seems to think those stats should count for something.

So then you don't care about regular-season NFL games unless playoff teams are involved.

Gosling: Because Houston is also undefeated. I'm just as adamant about the sancitity of respecting a team that's run the table as IAmRight is about there not being a playoff

Of course, I also favor Houston in the title game because then the game would actually have useful results. A rematch with Alabama is worthless. A game with oSu would be okay, assuming they beat Oklahoma.

Gosling: Shall we cancel the NFL playoffs as well? Just wrap the season after week 17? Super Bowl go bye-bye?

Best regular season record wins the title? It would be a superior way to have the best team as the champion. It wouldn't be as fun as playoffs, though. Yes, I think the 2007 Patriots were the best team in the league and that they proved it over and over throughout the season - one failure doesn't mean that the Giants were the better team.

Gosling: A regular season would be important for determining who gets into the playoffs.

Why bother? Why not just put everyone in the playoffs? It's all about creating excitement, not a champion. That's why the NCAA tournament is successful (well, that and gambling). Not because the best teams excel - because we like watching the best teams f*ckin' lose to teams that they shouldn't lose to.

So why not let everyone in and add more of those opportunities?

/let's pretend a 14-6 team should be considered champions based on their 1-1 record against an 18-1 team! This is a much better system than putting 1-loss teams against each other!

The actual reason I am against a playoff is because there is no plan for them that addresses all of the problems, not the least of which is that there are a different amount of teams that deserve playoff spots each year. In 2005, a two-team playoff was perfect. USC and Texas were, far and away, the best two teams in the country. In 2004, there were five undefeated teams, three from major conferences. If there is to be a playoff, I favor an objective goal before the end of the season that any teams that wish to be entered in the playoffs must achieve before earning their way in. That way everyone knows the conditions for their success going in and can't complain if they don't make it. And hey, if no one meets those qualifications, then no one wins a title.

Yanks_RSJ: Absolutely, then watch as LSU's defense ends Case Keenum's life while LSU's offensive line grinds Houston's defense to dust.

Maybe. Maybe not. There are only good outcomes from the BCS' perspective with an LSU/Houston game. There are only bad outcomes from a BCS perspective with an LSU/Alabama game.

No one is willing to think through the game, though. Everyone only thinks to the game.

Pratty: /Honestly doesn't think the '07 Pats were as good as the SB winning Pats

Sure, a team that went 18-1 isn't as good as a team that went, what, 16-4 with less talented players.

If we can honestly believe things like this, then why shouldn't we put barely bowl-eligible teams in the playoffs?

Pratty: Because my opinion doesn't make it fact? I doubt a lot of people would agree with my assessment.

I actually think that there are a lot of people that would say that.

Ackbarican_Idol: The Ivy League doesn't participate, so the championship is invalid.

I actually like that he makes the point that it doesn't affect school time so (jokingly) suggests that they must be smarter...when the smartest schools are the ones that don't even make their schools available for the playoffs because it's not worth it for anyone.

Of course, the real reason the Ivy League and SWAC don't participate is exactly what I said:

"The NCAA lost $500,000 on the playoffs last year, he said. Montana itself - which breaks even in football - lost $150,000 by making the championship game the last two years."

Yay, you can lose money by making it into the playoffs!

/unless you become national champs - I'm sure my school made up for it with selling national champs gear
//sucks to be one of the other 19, though

Here's what Montana's AD had to say about how well the FCS system works for those schools (new window)

Yes, let's base the new model on something that is actively punishing schools for success on the field! And that's WITH the selection committee rigging it as much as possible so the teams with the best attendance get the home games.

I mean, if you want playoffs wherein the SEC gets the 1, 2, and 3 seeds and plays all their games at home, then by all means, have a playoff. I don't think any of the other conferences are signing off on that one, though.

Hey, then you can have SEC vs SEC games every year for title games!

/everyone talking about how it needs a playoff hasn't seen how it works on other levels and lacks the critical thinking skills to realize how it would end up in FBS, to the detriment of 90 percent of programs (compared to the current system)

I guess that does make for a good reason to watch the playoffs: How much is this win going to cost that school?

OH! They pull the upset! That just cost them $75,000! Hope it was worth it!

dletter: OK, back to seriousness.... I have no idea and I haven't looked it up, but, how do they determine the seedings... is that based on some FCS rankings? Appears like they don't automatically take all the conference champs, since I noticed a few of them aren't in the bracket (Ivy League and SWAC to be particular).

Both the Ivy League and SWAC have auto-bids available to them, they just don't accept them. Which is kinda stupid, since the Ivy League accepts post-season bids in every other sport.