lhslep134 wrote: How can you expect a ton of fans to make travel arrangements when they find out where they're playing the week of?! At least now fans have about a month to make travel arrangements.

You're kidding, right? NCAA Tourney games give less than a week. Haha. (They find out Sunday and play on Thursday/Friday)

jordo212000 wrote:

lhslep134 wrote: How can you expect a ton of fans to make travel arrangements when they find out where they're playing the week of?! At least now fans have about a month to make travel arrangements.

You're kidding, right? NCAA Tourney games give less than a week. Haha. (They find out Sunday and play on Thursday/Friday)

YOU'RE kidding right? You have to be. You're not an idiot, even though you're trying to call me one.

You're comparing college basketball arenas that hold 20,000 tops and football stadiums that hold upwards of 100,000 people.

Not to mention its known on selection sunday where your team will be playing if they make it past the first weekend, DUH! Everyone knew when OSU got past the first two rounds they'd be playing in St. Louis.

Next time you try to call me out, please do so intelligently.

Ha I can't believe nobody has said it yet but what about tradition? These New Years Bowl Games and BCS Games are tradition and that's what is sooo great about college football and no playoff makes regular season games so much bigger. For instance I can't remember last time a #1 played a #2 in the regular season in College Basketball but in College Football I can name you easily the last 5 times its happened

2009-Florida v Alabama SEC Title
2008-Florida v Alabama SEC Title
2006-Ohio State v Michigan
2006-Ohio State v Texas
2001-Oklahoma v Nebraska

lhslep134 wrote: YOU'RE kidding right? You have to be. You're not an idiot, even though you're trying to call me one.

You're comparing college basketball arenas that hold 20,000 tops and football stadiums that hold upwards of 100,000 people.

Not to mention its known on selection sunday where your team will be playing if they make it past the first weekend, DUH! Everyone knew when OSU got past the first two rounds they'd be playing in St. Louis.

Next time you try to call me out, please do so intelligently.

How many bowl stadiums hold 100,000 people champ? Heck very few regular stadiums hold 100,000. Try more like 50-60k and the basketball stadiums usually seat more than 20,000 people, especially as you get closer to the Final 4

Do you know how to read? I said UPWARDS of 100,000 that could mean 70,000 (Orange Bowl) or 93,000 (Rose Bowl).

And as you said, some arenas seat more than 20,000 closer to the final four.

Guess what...people know in advance when and where those games are. Thanks for proving my point.

Take the top 8 teams in the country every year...just for example...OSU, UF, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Texas, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. lhslep, you honestly think those 8 teams wouldn't be able to make travel arrangements and what not with a weeks time?

Hell, if you told those 8 teams' fans TODAY about the playoff, in say, Montana...you'd have every one of those school's fans there as fast as they can and trying to get in the game.

SportsAndLady wrote: Take the top 8 teams in the country every year...just for example...OSU, UF, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Texas, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. lhslep, you honestly think those 8 teams wouldn't be able to make travel arrangements and what not with a weeks time?

Hell, if you told those 8 teams' fans TODAY about the playoff, in say, Montana...you'd have every one of those school's fans there as fast as they can and trying to get in the game.

Exactly. The dude is dense.

The BCS also helps in maintaining something resembling competitive balance. Even the most middling conference gets multiple bowl game spots and (normally) an audience that, if they want to watch football, will have to watch that game. How many Mountain West games end up on ESPN, ESPN2, or the major networks during a year? How about the MAC? The Sun Belt? And how many would there be with no bowl games?

In the event of a playoff system, you'd see one team per small conference. They would get into the first round and get annihilated; the seedings would be set up so that the consensus #1 team plays against the #16 team, which would be the Sun Belt champion, who in a 1-120 ranking system would fall somewhere between 50 and 70. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see a scenario where a 12-0 BCS conference champion loses to a 7-5 team whose five losses were to the dregs of those same conferences.

And to those who suggest that a playoff can run parallel to a reduced bowl schedule, I'll ask you this. How much of the NIT do you watch?

NNN wrote: And to those who suggest that a playoff can run parallel to a reduced bowl schedule, I'll ask you this. How much of the NIT do you watch?

How much of the St. Petersburg pres. by Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl did you watch? And yes, that is a real bowl game.

slide22 wrote: In CFB there are usually 3,4, or 5 teams who have a legitimate claim as the best team in the country, and some years it is less than that.

Sadly, in the years since the BCS has been around, the best team in the country has been left out of the NC game as many times as they have gotten in.

jordo212000 wrote: How much of the St. Petersburg pres. by Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl did you watch? And yes, that is a real bowl game.

I'm fairly certain I was working when the game was played last year. I did watch a good chunk of the previous year.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: Sadly, in the years since the BCS has been around, the best team in the country has been left out of the NC game as many times as they have gotten in.

Name some of these times that it's actually happened. The best team in the country gets in; it's who the second-best team is that's a matter of some debate. (And don't say Auburn in 2004; I saw them all year and have no reason to believe they could have hung with either one of Oklahoma or USC.)

And how would a playoff system alleviate this anyway? Instead of one team complaining that they didn't get into the final two, we'd have 10 complaining that they don't get into the final sixteen. Besides that, I don't think anyone honestly believes that Duke and Butler were better basketball teams this year than Kansas and Kentucky.

NNN wrote: I'm fairly certain I was working when the game was played last year. I did watch a good chunk of the previous year.

You're one of the few. Congratulations. I guess I just don't love games that solve absolutely nothing involving two teams trying to decide which one sucks more, as much as you do. To each their own.

I took the liberty of putting together what a 2009 NCAA football playoff would look like.

#1 - Alabama - SEC champion
#16 - East Carolina - C-USA champion

#8 - Ohio State - Big 10 champion
#9 - Georgia Tech - ACC champion

#5 - Florida - at large
#12 - BYU - at-large

#4 - TCU - Mountain West champion
#13 - Miami - at-large

#2 - Texas - Big 12 champion
#15 - Troy - Sun Belt champion

#7 - Oregon - Pac-10 champion
#10 - Iowa - at-large

#6 - Boise State - WAC champion
#11 - Virginia Tech - at-large

#3 - Cincinnati - Big East champion
#14 - Central Michigan - MAC champion

With that playoff, it would still probably be Alabama and Texas.

NNN wrote:

jordo212000 wrote: How much of the St. Petersburg pres. by Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl did you watch? And yes, that is a real bowl game.

I'm fairly certain I was working when the game was played last year. I did watch a good chunk of the previous year.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: Sadly, in the years since the BCS has been around, the best team in the country has been left out of the NC game as many times as they have gotten in.

Name some of these times that it's actually happened. The best team in the country gets in; it's who the second-best team is that's a matter of some debate. (And don't say Auburn in 2004; I saw them all year and have no reason to believe they could have hung with either one of Oklahoma or USC.)

And how would a playoff system alleviate this anyway? Instead of one team complaining that they didn't get into the final two, we'd have 10 complaining that they don't get into the final sixteen. Besides that, I don't think anyone honestly believes that Duke and Butler were better basketball teams this year than Kansas and Kentucky.

Sorry, but I will use 2004 Auburn because if that's 2009, there's no way an undefeated SEC team is not playing for a NC. How about Nebraska getting in the NC game when they lost 63-36 to colorado in the Big12 championship game? There were a number of people who didn't feel OSU belonged in the NC game in 2002 or 2007. The only year you can really argue they had the best case to be there was '06 when they went wire to wire #1. How bout LSU getting in in the same year, 2007 when one week before they were like #7 in the polls with 2 losses? Do you think OSU and LSU were the two best teams that year? I don't. Texas getting left out comes to mind from last year. And argue it all you want, Utah would have beat any team in the BCS the night they played Alabama, but they weren't popular enough and them and their 12-0 record got stuck in the sugar bowl with ZERO chance to win a NC, instead of being tossed in a playoff where they had a chance to EARN a NC. And under the current BCS system, that's all you need. It's about 1 game, but you have to win the popularity contest to get there. It's not just about who the best team may be. It's about who's ONE of the best teams that will bring in the most money and ratings, with the money and ratings taking precedence over the on the field football aspect of it, instead of playing to determine who can consistently beat the other "best" teams in the country which is that way basketball does it. You're right, Duke and Butler may have not been the best teams at the start of the tournament, but they were at the end, because both played better together as a team than any other teams in the tournament. Which is exactly why Kansas and Kentucky got beat.

You can't look 3 teams with the same record who have played completely different competition in completely different conferences, with all the variables like injuries, suspensions, weather etc and say "you two are the best, you get in...but you, you're not good enough so you don't get in". Thats complete subjective CRAP. And that's what we have. A subjective system that rewards the most popular teams (i.e. the cash cows) and leaves teams out of ANY BCS game who have an 11-1 record while 2-3 loss teams get in over them because that's who "the bowl wants" because they bring in more money. It's about the integrity of the sport, and sadly all the people running the postseason of that sport have NONE of it. The BCS is barely more than a charade that likes to claim they crown a NC when they only thing they're really out to crown is their own bank accounts.

Oh, and BTW, how many years is Boise State going to have to go undefeated and win a BCS bowl game before they get a chance? Everyone says if they do it this year, playing VT and Oregon State, "this is there year", but I think we'll see the BCS coming up with more crap excuses this year as to why the don't get in even if they do go undefeated. Might as well take out that "C" and just call it the BS.

SportsAndLady wrote: Take the top 8 teams in the country every year...just for example...OSU, UF, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Texas, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. lhslep, you honestly think those 8 teams wouldn't be able to make travel arrangements and what not with a weeks time?

Hell, if you told those 8 teams' fans TODAY about the playoff, in say, Montana...you'd have every one of those school's fans there as fast as they can and trying to get in the game.

I'm saying there's a lot of logistics involved that the NCAA tournament doesn't have to worry about.

It also depends on how the playoff system is set up. If it's the top 4 seeds get home games first, then it would be easier, because fans would only really have to travel once, or twice for the 5-8 seeds.



And in today's economy I don't think you'd see 50,000 OSU fans shell out the kind of of money to watch 3 bowl games, with how expensive airfare is and how much tickets would cost. It's one thing to only have to do it once (Rose Bowl). But I doubt it would happen 3 times.

So yes, I disagree with you and Jordo.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
There were a number of people who didn't feel OSU belonged in the NC game in 2002 or 2007. The only year you can really argue they had the best case to be there was '06 when they went wire to wire #1.

Do you think OSU and LSU were the two best teams that year?

Texas getting left out comes to mind from last year.

1. OSU was undefeated in 2002 how the hell can someone think they didn't deserve it?

2. LSU was the best team in the country that year. They had 2 losses but both were when they were injury depleted. When healthy, they beat a fellow BCS team, V Tech 48-7. They were CLEARLY the best team in the country when healthy. And you want to cry about them jumping from #7 to #2? Then what's your excuse for the teams ahead of them losing? If Oklahoma or WVU or USC wins their game, they're in instead of LSU. Can't blame LSU for everyone else losing, just like you can't blame Duke for everyone else losing (Syracuse, Kentucky, Kansas).

3. Texas didn't even play for their conference championship, so why should they deserve a chance to play for the national championship? Maybe they shouldn't have lost to Texas Tech, who got smoked in the Cotton Bowl by a decent Ole Miss team, which proved every team in the Big 12 was a fluke because that conference doesn't know how to play defense.



Keep being a naysayer, no one's going to disagree that a playoff is better but at some point you need to give the BCS credit for at least coming up with as objective as a system as possible in college football. If you think things were better with the polls (EVEN MORE SUBJECTIVE), then somethings wrong.

lhslep134 wrote:

SportsAndLady wrote: Take the top 8 teams in the country every year...just for example...OSU, UF, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Texas, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. lhslep, you honestly think those 8 teams wouldn't be able to make travel arrangements and what not with a weeks time?

Hell, if you told those 8 teams' fans TODAY about the playoff, in say, Montana...you'd have every one of those school's fans there as fast as they can and trying to get in the game.

I'm saying there's a lot of logistics involved that the NCAA tournament doesn't have to worry about.

It also depends on how the playoff system is set up. If it's the top 4 seeds get home games first, then it would be easier, because fans would only really have to travel once, or twice for the 5-8 seeds.



And in today's economy I don't think you'd see 50,000 OSU fans shell out the kind of of money to watch 3 bowl games, with how expensive airfare is and how much tickets would cost. It's one thing to only have to do it once (Rose Bowl). But I doubt it would happen 3 times.

So yes, I disagree with you and Jordo.

Sorry but that's just crazy. Hell you go to OSU, you should realize how crazy they are about their football. They would shell out money to go see 3 games, especially if it's a damn playoff and all the hype around it that it would carry.

SportsAndLady wrote:

lhslep134 wrote:

SportsAndLady wrote: Take the top 8 teams in the country every year...just for example...OSU, UF, USC, Alabama, Penn State, Texas, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. lhslep, you honestly think those 8 teams wouldn't be able to make travel arrangements and what not with a weeks time?

Hell, if you told those 8 teams' fans TODAY about the playoff, in say, Montana...you'd have every one of those school's fans there as fast as they can and trying to get in the game.

I'm saying there's a lot of logistics involved that the NCAA tournament doesn't have to worry about.

It also depends on how the playoff system is set up. If it's the top 4 seeds get home games first, then it would be easier, because fans would only really have to travel once, or twice for the 5-8 seeds.



And in today's economy I don't think you'd see 50,000 OSU fans shell out the kind of of money to watch 3 bowl games, with how expensive airfare is and how much tickets would cost. It's one thing to only have to do it once (Rose Bowl). But I doubt it would happen 3 times.

So yes, I disagree with you and Jordo.

Sorry but that's just crazy. Hell you go to OSU, you should realize how crazy they are about their football. They would shell out money to go see 3 games, especially if it's a damn playoff and all the hype around it that it would carry.

Hell, I live in today's economy. I know how crazy people are about NOT shelling out $2400 to see 3 games, at the minimum (ticket, airfare, hotel). Rich old alumni might, but not students. Maybe in a fantasy world, but not the one we live in.

lhslep134 wrote: And in today's economy I don't think you'd see 50,000 OSU fans shell out the kind of of money to watch 3 bowl games, with how expensive airfare is and how much tickets would cost. It's one thing to only have to do it once (Rose Bowl). But I doubt it would happen 3 times.

So yes, I disagree with you and Jordo.

Are you implying that there are only 50,000 Ohio State fans who would shell out money? Obviously there are far more than that. There would be more fans than tickets, there always is.

and once again fans purchase "expensive" tickets to go to NCAA tourney games every year despite the fact there is (usually) more than one game Ohio State will participate in.

You can be against a playoff, you just can't use the bogus excuse that fans won't watch/travel. It has no merit at all.

lhslep134 wrote:Hell, I live in today's economy. I know how crazy people are about NOT shelling out $2400 to see 3 games, at the minimum (ticket, airfare, hotel). Rich old alumni might, but not students. Maybe in a fantasy world, but not the one we live in.

The economy is bad, but this aint the damn Great Depression. Look around you, where's one place in society that people will still shovel out money for something that isn't a need? Sports.

jpake1 wrote: The BCS rapes college football of a great playoff. Now, there you have it. A rape case for the court system.

Ben Roethlisberger works for the BCS?







Seriously though...take the top 4 ranked teams at the end of the year and play 1 vs 4 & 2 vs 3...winners play for the title 2 weeks later. First game are part of the regular bowl season...championship game is its own entity.

jordo212000 wrote:

lhslep134 wrote: And in today's economy I don't think you'd see 50,000 OSU fans shell out the kind of of money to watch 3 bowl games, with how expensive airfare is and how much tickets would cost. It's one thing to only have to do it once (Rose Bowl). But I doubt it would happen 3 times.

So yes, I disagree with you and Jordo.

Are you implying that there are only 50,000 Ohio State fans who would shell out money? Obviously there are far more than that. There would be more fans than tickets, there always is.

and once again fans purchase "expensive" tickets to go to NCAA tourney games every year despite the fact there is (usually) more than one game Ohio State will participate in.

You can be against a playoff, you just can't use the bogus excuse that fans won't watch/travel. It has no merit at all.

No I'm saying depending on the venue, there will probably be about 50,000 tickets available to OSU fans. I'm completely for a playoff, depending on how it's set up. I just don't see fans willing to pay airfare hotel and tickets for 3 games. How can you say that you KNOW for a fact fans will, when the only empirical evidence you have is that we sell out 1 bowl game, a game in which fans have 1 month to figure out travel plans.

Sorry, don't see fans shelling out the money for last minute (only finding out the week of) airfare 2 times (assuming the first game is known more than 1 week in advance).

SportsAndLady wrote:

lhslep134 wrote:Hell, I live in today's economy. I know how crazy people are about NOT shelling out $2400 to see 3 games, at the minimum (ticket, airfare, hotel). Rich old alumni might, but not students. Maybe in a fantasy world, but not the one we live in.

The economy is bad, but this aint the damn Great Depression. Look around you, where's one place in society that people will still shovel out money for something that isn't a need? Sports.

WOW ignorant statement of the thread. If you're so sure of this, I'm sure you can find me numbers that say that attendence isn't decreasing, right? While you're at it, find me the numbers that show that all of the BCS games sold EVERY ticket to the participating schools. I'll help you out and say that I know for a fact the Sugar Bowl didn't sell all of the allotted tickets to both Cinci and Florida, as my friends that go to UF were able to get tickets 4 days before the game if they wanted to, which they didn't.

ksig489 wrote:

jpake1 wrote: The BCS rapes college football of a great playoff. Now, there you have it. A rape case for the court system.

Ben Roethlisberger works for the BCS?







Seriously though...take the top 4 ranked teams at the end of the year and play 1 vs 4 & 2 vs 3...winners play for the title 2 weeks later. First game are part of the regular bowl season...championship game is its own entity.

That's a +1, not a playoff. You're still going to have teams 5-8 cry and moan about not being one of the top 4.