LJ wrote:

sleeper wrote:

LJ wrote: If Cincy gets worked by Florida, no

If Cincy wins, I think we see a +1

Still doesn't work. Because you'd have either Texas/Alabama, TCU/Boise, and Cinci as undefeated, who plays in the championship game?

Cincy is a BCS team, it's simple, they get into the +1

And it's simple to match up the top 4 if they wanted to go that way. You still have your bowls with an NC game.

That still doesn't make any sense, how can teams that play in D1 football not have a shot at winning the title?

We need to organize a protest similar to the one the Browns pulled this year with the empty seats at kickoff or something, since ppl aren't going to totally disown the bowl games.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: We need to organize a protest similar to the one the Browns pulled this year with the empty seats at kickoff or something, since ppl aren't going to totally disown the bowl games.

Protests with no real sacrifice aren't going to impress anyone.

sleeper wrote:

LJ wrote:

sleeper wrote:

LJ wrote: If Cincy gets worked by Florida, no

If Cincy wins, I think we see a +1

Still doesn't work. Because you'd have either Texas/Alabama, TCU/Boise, and Cinci as undefeated, who plays in the championship game?

Cincy is a BCS team, it's simple, they get into the +1

And it's simple to match up the top 4 if they wanted to go that way. You still have your bowls with an NC game.

That still doesn't make any sense, how can teams that play in D1 football not have a shot at winning the title?

You obviously don't understand big business bureaucracy. Baby steps in the right direction will get us to the goal.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

krambman wrote: If you can come up with a playoff system that keep the regular season as meaningful and exciting as it is now and that makes as much money for the participating schools, TV networks, and host locations, then we will have a change.

Until you can do that, quit complaining and enjoy the beauty that is college football. 14 weeks where every game matter and 3 weeks of great intersectional bowl matchups.

I just did!!! Keep things the way they are until this point in the season...Now that the final BCS Ranking is out, take the top 4 and have a playoff...Everyone is happy.

Bama/TCU Texas/Cincy Those are the best four teams in the counrty in the eyes of the BCS....They got what they wanted, but there are still cases being made for Cincy and TCU, so give us what we want and let them have their chance to get to the Final..

But everyone wouldn't be happy. Boise would still be undefeated and left out in the cold. I will never see why a playoff is the "perfect system." Were the New York Giants the best team in the NFL in 2008-2009? No, the Patriots were. Yes, for one game the Giants were better than the Patriots, but for 18 weeks prior to that the Patriots were better than everyone else. Yes, the Giants will always be Super Bowl camps, but that doesn't change the fact that the best team that year was the Pats. I would argue that most years, far more often than not (at least under the current BCS system, the system had lots of flaws at first) the BCS gets it right. With such a short season like college football has a team with two losses does not deserve a chance to win the national championship over an undefeated team (which would occasionally happen with a four team playoff, definitely with an 8 team). Years like this, with five undefeated teams, are very rare. I would argue that the best team in college football wins the title in the BCS system as often as it does in the NFL with a playoff.

Yes, a playoff might be fun and might be enjoyable to watch, but let's be honest, it would not produce a legitimate champion more regularly than the current system does.

krambman wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

krambman wrote: If you can come up with a playoff system that keep the regular season as meaningful and exciting as it is now and that makes as much money for the participating schools, TV networks, and host locations, then we will have a change.

Until you can do that, quit complaining and enjoy the beauty that is college football. 14 weeks where every game matter and 3 weeks of great intersectional bowl matchups.

I just did!!! Keep things the way they are until this point in the season...Now that the final BCS Ranking is out, take the top 4 and have a playoff...Everyone is happy.

Bama/TCU Texas/Cincy Those are the best four teams in the counrty in the eyes of the BCS....They got what they wanted, but there are still cases being made for Cincy and TCU, so give us what we want and let them have their chance to get to the Final..

But everyone wouldn't be happy. Boise would still be undefeated and left out in the cold. I will never see why a playoff is the "perfect system." Were the New York Giants the best team in the NFL in 2008-2009? No, the Patriots were. Yes, for one game the Giants were better than the Patriots, but for 18 weeks prior to that the Patriots were better than everyone else. Yes, the Giants will always be Super Bowl camps, but that doesn't change the fact that the best team that year was the Pats. I would argue that most years, far more often than not (at least under the current BCS system, the system had lots of flaws at first) the BCS gets it right. With such a short season like college football has a team with two losses does not deserve a chance to win the national championship over an undefeated team (which would occasionally happen with a four team playoff, definitely with an 8 team). Years like this, with five undefeated teams, are very rare. I would argue that the best team in college football wins the title in the BCS system as often as it does in the NFL with a playoff.

Yes, a playoff might be fun and might be enjoyable to watch, but let's be honest, it would not produce a legitimate champion more regularly than the current system does.

I pray to the lord jesus christ that you don't not have offspring. Easily one of the dumbest posts I have ever read.

If the patriots were the better team, then why couldn't the win the championship ON THE FIELD?

And the BCS gets it right? Please prove to me that TCU, Boise, or Cinci is NOT the best team in the nation. Thanks for playing, you've been ruined.

krambman wrote:

Yes, a playoff might be fun and might be enjoyable to watch, but let's be honest, it would not produce a legitimate champion more regularly than the current system does.

That's part of the difficulty of winning championships. There are all kinds of occasions throughout sports where the best team in the regular season doesn't win the title. Even in seven game series, the favorite still doesn't always win.

To be a champion, you have to be good all year, especially when it matters most. The problem with the BCS is that it doesn't even allow the "underdog", the team that has won all its games but still isn't considered to be the favorite, the chance to win a title on the field.

Kramb, what do you do about 2004 when ther are 3 undefeateds from BCS conferences????? Auburn gets the shaft...if we have a 4 team playoff they get to make their case on the field that they desrve consideration for a championship..

sleeper wrote:

krambman wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

krambman wrote: If you can come up with a playoff system that keep the regular season as meaningful and exciting as it is now and that makes as much money for the participating schools, TV networks, and host locations, then we will have a change.

Until you can do that, quit complaining and enjoy the beauty that is college football. 14 weeks where every game matter and 3 weeks of great intersectional bowl matchups.

I just did!!! Keep things the way they are until this point in the season...Now that the final BCS Ranking is out, take the top 4 and have a playoff...Everyone is happy.

Bama/TCU Texas/Cincy Those are the best four teams in the counrty in the eyes of the BCS....They got what they wanted, but there are still cases being made for Cincy and TCU, so give us what we want and let them have their chance to get to the Final..

But everyone wouldn't be happy. Boise would still be undefeated and left out in the cold. I will never see why a playoff is the "perfect system." Were the New York Giants the best team in the NFL in 2008-2009? No, the Patriots were. Yes, for one game the Giants were better than the Patriots, but for 18 weeks prior to that the Patriots were better than everyone else. Yes, the Giants will always be Super Bowl camps, but that doesn't change the fact that the best team that year was the Pats. I would argue that most years, far more often than not (at least under the current BCS system, the system had lots of flaws at first) the BCS gets it right. With such a short season like college football has a team with two losses does not deserve a chance to win the national championship over an undefeated team (which would occasionally happen with a four team playoff, definitely with an 8 team). Years like this, with five undefeated teams, are very rare. I would argue that the best team in college football wins the title in the BCS system as often as it does in the NFL with a playoff.

Yes, a playoff might be fun and might be enjoyable to watch, but let's be honest, it would not produce a legitimate champion more regularly than the current system does.

I pray to the lord jesus christ that you don't not have offspring. Easily one of the dumbest posts I have ever read.

If the patriots were the better team, then why couldn't the win the championship ON THE FIELD?

And the BCS gets it right? Please prove to me that TCU, Boise, or Cinci is NOT the best team in the nation. Thanks for playing, you've been ruined.

First, the NFl plays a one-game championship. It's not like other sports where they play a series of games to determine who is best. In every other major sport they play a series of games (usually 7) with whoever wins the most games in the series being named the champion. In football you get one game as your championship. Had the Patriots and Giants played a 7 game series I would bet that the Pats would have won that series. And in fact, they did beat the Giants on the Giants field only a few weeks earlier. So they finished their season series 1-1. Yes, the lost the championship game, but that doesn't mean that they weren't the best team throughout the season. A playoff doesn't necessarily reward the best team with a championship. It provides the best team, and any other team who was just good enough to qualify, the opportunity to get hot at the right team and be better than the team you are lining up against for a few games. The Patriots had done that for 18 straight games. It just so happened that the one game where they didn't do that happened to be the one where they give out a trophy. So I ask you this, if the Super Bowl is a legitimate championship game, then why isn't the BS championship game one also? It is a single game played between two teams determined by a process everyone involved has agreed to and it is played on the field. In fact, if winning on the field is the only thing that matters, how can any team in any sport, especially football, who loses even a single game ever be a champion? If you need to win it on the field then losing a single game means that someone else was better than you. Let's be honest, it means that for that one game, for 60 minutes they were better. It does not mean they were a better team during the whole season. A playoff birth recognizes your accomplishments during the regular season. A championship in a playoff format only recognizes your accomplishments in the playoffs. Nothing recognizes your accomplishments throughout the entire season.

And I can't prove to you that Alabama and Texas are categorically better than Cinci, TCU, or Boise State. But I don't believe that a playoff could prove that either. All a playoff can prove is which team out of two on a given field on a given day was better for those 60 minutes of football. That's all any sporting event can do really. Is determine who is better on that field on that day. A championship is there to recognize a body of work, an entire season. The BCS does that as well as anything else. No system is perfect.

Krambman.....Merrian Webster defines a champion as one who has beat all others in a competition. Let's call the NFL playoffs the competition and use your Patriots and Giants example. Although the Giants didn't beat everyone in the regular season like the Patriots did, they did win when it mattered most. To be a champion, you have to be consistently good over a period of time and you must beat all others in the competition. In the playoffs, the Patriots couldn't beat all others in competition, so evidently they weren't the best team. If they could have won the Super Bowl then they would have proved they were the best, but evidently they were succeptible and capable of being beat. They were beat by a better team that night, one that executed perfectly and outperformed them on the defensive side of the ball. However, that better team would not have had the chance to beat the Patriots had it not been for a playoff. You put a strong emphasis on how important the regular season is, but how is it fair to deprive someone a chance of competing for a title when a team has done everything in its power to reach the top? If you've won all your games and your schedule is reasonable, then why not have a chance?

May I make a suggestion?

[size=xx-large]120 team playoff![/size]

That is all.

I agree with the idea that the Giants Pats tied there series and the Pats were the better team...ybut your argument is just going to go around in circles.

Fact is if three teams from major conferences go undefeated, they deserve a shot at playing head to head to determine who is the champion. It obviously satisfies us b/c that's the way it is done across the board, in every sport but D1 CFB.

You can't prove if TX AL are better than Cincy TCU etc so let the majority of fans have it decided in the way that we are accustomed to in every other sport we watch.