Florida most certainly will (or should might be the better word) not be #4. They got mauled by Alabama today.

1. Bama
2. Texas/TCU/Cincy/Boise(I refuse to pick one b/c it is impossible)
3. Texas/TCU/Cincy/Boise
4. Texas/TCU/Cincy/Boise
5. Texas/TCU/Cincy/Boise
6. Florida

If Florida had lost a close game and Texas lost, I think they might have finished #2. Their computer ranking isn't going to take a big hit from losing to Alabama. They will not fall below Boise State. They will be probably be 4 or 5 in the human polls, and 2 or 3 in the computers. I'm thinking it will look like this:

1. Alabama
2. Texas
3. Cincinnati
4. Florida
5. TCU

florida might be #5 in the bcs cause the computers love them so they could stay ahead of boise. no way they are 4th though.

When Auburn was left out that year they were the third undefeated there should've been a revolution....That is the top example of why the BCS is fucked.

How the hell do we still have this bullshit after that happened???

ESPN did a nice comparison on the three tonight. I will provide what they presented, but I recalculated the opponents' win percentage because I thought TCU's was significantly lower than what ESPN presented and it was:

Cincinnati - 0 losses, 3-0 vs. top 25 teams, opponents' win percentage 0.490, points per game 39.8
TCU - 0 losses, 2-0 vs. top 25 teams, opponents' win percentage 0.486, points per game 40.7
Texas - 0 losses, 2-0 vs. top 25 teams, opponents' win percentage 0.529, points per game 40.7

These three teams are putting up similar PPG and are essentially indifferentiable when it comes to overall record and record against top 25 teams. However, when comparing the opponents' win percentages, it is apparent that Texas has played a tougher schedule than Cinci and TCU. For this reason, and the fact that the BCS does not look at margin of victory in consideration, the best case can be made for Texas.

In Division 1-A a playoff - while the fairest method of determining the NC - will never happen.

WHY? It's the proverbial money talks and bullshit walks scenario.

The host BCS bowl game cities, the TV networks, and the advertisers will never allow it to happen. Too much $$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made.........or lost. By lost revenue the BCS bowl game cities may not be too eager to move their games from the lucrative New Years Week time frame to an early to mid December date to host a first round game.

Plus which non-BCS bowl games would now get the honor of hosting a first or second round game...the Outback, Cotton, Gator, or Capital One bowls??? You would think these non-BCS bowls would welcome the promotion to "BCS status" but even for these cities it's about the $$$$$$$$$$ not the BCS status. That would get interesting.

The university AD's themselves will not not be so willing to risk exposing their high-dollar talent to additional weeks of high-profile pounding just to establish a more equitable NC series.

Finally, the fan-bases have the resources to travel to a single bowl game, but would there be enough following to sustain multiple games? Teams like Ohio State, Texas, USC, Florida, etc. might have the following but the Boise State's and Cincinnati's - um - probably not so much.

ccrunner609 wrote:^^^^First off the Presidents are the ones that are blocking this.

And they are blocking it for the same reasons I said the AD's are blocking it (not to mention it costs the schools $$$$$ in travel expenses)...and the last time I checked the AD's report to the presidents.

ccrunner609 wrote:Second, travel? Non-issue. Have you seen the NCAA basketball games? Those stands are full, every game.

Apples to oranges. 15,000 seat BB arenas are a bit different than 75,000 seat football stadiums. And if you are specifically referring to the NCAA BB tournament games I would agree with you EXCEPT the arenas are smaller and they are pulling from 4 fan-bases, not 2.

ccrunner609 wrote:third $$$$$$$$, all first and second round games would be home games, do you think for one second that 2 tourney games in Columbus wouldnt sell out? THe BC$ would make more $ with a playoff then these bowl games.

Are you calling the shots? How do you know these would be "home" games for certain? Is it etched in stone? Why wouldn't the "lesser bowls" want to host the first and second round games to get in on the BC$$$$$ action?

IF - IF the first round games are "home" games I would agree.

Bottom-line: A playoff scenario in Div 1-A will NEVER happen.

Guess you and I agree on political things but not on football! lol

^^^^I appreciate your astute, informed insight!

Bottom-line: Ain't gonna happen.

I still say a 12 team playoff would work.

You play the games at 4 BCS sites,and 1 alternating site each year also gets the championship game...

All the other teams that get the irrelevant bowls, can still go to those...

LTrain23 wrote: I still say a 12 team playoff would work.

You play the games at 4 BCS sites,and 1 alternating site each year also gets the championship game...

All the other teams that get the irrelevant bowls, can still go to those...

Love to see it...but don't hold your breath.

We just going to keep crying over it?

You can't do anything about it, so let it go.

I can't do anything about Jim Tressel calling 2 running plays up the gut and a 2 yard pass on 3rd down either....but I will continue to nag about it.

DaBrowns41 wrote: We just going to keep crying over it?

You can't do anything about it, so let it go.

Just like everything you ,and me, and everbody else post on here doesn't matter or effect anything, but we still post anyways.

You gotta love when people blindly love and support the BCS