It isn't just about "letting the Bowls make their money", it's the time frame advertisers have to hype the contest that allows the high price for their advertising to be charged. You really think giving them a week to hype their game is going to be as attractive advertising wise as a month? I don't. That's where they make their money, and that's what needs to be overcome imo.

Pick6;936124 wrote:um, how?

Playoffs do not tell you who the best team is...they tell you who is playing the best at the end of the season.

Do you really think the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team this year in the MLB? Far from it. It took an Atlanta collapse and hitting a hot streak, and now they are probably going to win the World Series.

I'm sick of the argument that a playoff is the best option because it is the only way to crown a "true champion" or the "best team." It's not.

When the current system is essentially "lets ask 59 random guys with Journalism degrees who the best is, and match those teams up in a game" (for 2/3 of the formula, at least), basically any solution will be able to prove something more.

sherm03;936234 wrote:
Do you really think the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team this year in the MLB?

So question for you:

What system do you think is better?

Old system:

Best team from each league record wise wins the pennant and plays for the World Series

Current system:

4 teams make playoffs in each league, winner of each 4 team bracket meets in the World Series

sherm03;936234 wrote:Playoffs do not tell you who the best team is...they tell you who is playing the best at the end of the season.

Do you really think the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team this year in the MLB? Far from it. It took an Atlanta collapse and hitting a hot streak, and now they are probably going to win the World Series.

I'm sick of the argument that a playoff is the best option because it is the only way to crown a "true champion" or the "best team." It's not.

its beats having computers & media members/coaches randomly decide who the best team in the nation is. true champion be damned, just decide it on the field

dazedconfused;936249 wrote:its beats having computers & media members/coaches randomly decide who the best team in the nation is. true champion be damned, just decide it on the field

And the BCS system beats the system that predated it...

sherm03;936234 wrote:I'm sick of the argument that a playoff is the best option because it is the only way to crown a "true champion" or the "best team." It's not.

What if we change the word "only" to "best"? A playoff is the BEST way to crown a champion.

There is no absolute way to crown a single team as "best". It's impossible. Every team doesn't play the same schedule or level of competition, home/road match-ups are unbalanced, weather plays a factor in all outdoor sports, injuries occur, there's a luck aspect to any game, etc etc. Since there is no definitive way to do it, then why not have it settled on the field?

Also, playoffs only tell you who is playing best at the end of the season out of the teams that were good enough to qualify for the playoffs to begin with.

Mulva;936184 wrote:A 10-2 #9 team being left out is pretty significantly different than a 12-0 #3 team being left out in my opinion.

When LSU made the Title game at 10-2, there were plenty of other 10-2 teams...were those significant "left out"'s?

Point is, there's always going to be teams upset b/c they were left out.

SportsAndLady;936329 wrote:When LSU made the Title game at 10-2, there were plenty of other 10-2 teams...were those significant "left out"'s?

Point is, there's always going to be teams upset b/c they were left out.

So we shouldn't have any champion then. Is that what you are saying?

sherm03;936234 wrote:Playoffs do not tell you who the best team is...they tell you who is playing the best at the end of the season.

Do you really think the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team this year in the MLB? Far from it. It took an Atlanta collapse and hitting a hot streak, and now they are probably going to win the World Series.

I'm sick of the argument that a playoff is the best option because it is the only way to crown a "true champion" or the "best team." It's not.

Why do we bother even playing then? If a team is the best of the season, shouldn't that mean they play well the WHOLE season, including the end? And, it doesn't reward a team for just playing well at the end. You have to play well the whole season to get into the playoffs to begin with.

I think a playoff would be best but im fine w the way it is. When was the last time the majority didnt think the team that won the national championship was actually the best team?

sherm03;936234 wrote:Playoffs do not tell you who the best team is...they tell you who is playing the best at the end of the season.

Do you really think the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team this year in the MLB? Far from it. It took an Atlanta collapse and hitting a hot streak, and now they are probably going to win the World Series.

I'm sick of the argument that a playoff is the best option because it is the only way to crown a "true champion" or the "best team." It's not.

St Louis hasn't won the World Series yet, if Texas wins would you say they were not the best team this year? Besides baseball is a different animal ,when you play 162 regular season games ,there are going to be some peaks and valleys for every team.

Rotinaj;936381 wrote:When was the last time the majority didnt think the team that won the national championship was actually the best team?

True controversy:

2000-2001: Both Florida State and Miami had 1 loss (Miami beat FSU) and FSU was chosen to play Oklahoma. I think it's arguable Miami could have beaten Oklahoma.

2003-2004: That was the year with USC winning AP championship and LSU winning BCS championship

2004-2005: OU, USC, Aub undefeated regular seasons

People think the BCS sucks, but it's still a hell of a lot better than the even more mythical system we had before, the strict poll system. At least the BCS attempts to pair the 2 best teams and has done a pretty damn good job of it, relative to how it was under the preceding system.

Rotinaj;936381 wrote:I think a playoff would be best but im fine w the way it is. When was the last time the majority didnt think the team that won the national championship was actually the best team?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_controversies

It really is more about the teams that were left out of the game. The BCS has had way too many problems than getting it right.

So...how will it shake out if there are multiple undefeated teams? It is probably a guarantee that the LSU/Alabama winner and Oklahoma are locks if they keep winning. What about Oklahoma State - would they be able to hold off Boise/Stanford/Wisconsin/Clemson (right now, voters like Wisconsin more than Ok St and they are close with Stanford and Boise, having just jumped the Broncos in the coaches poll)?

Let's say the top four all end up with one loss. Would, say, LSU (with a win over Bama and an upset loss somewhere else) be able to work its way back to the top 2 over an undefeated Boise/Stanford/Wisconsin/Clemson considering the schedule they play(ed)?

Can Boise hold off Stanford/Wisconsin/Clemson?

It is pretty clear the SEC winner and Oklahoma will be in if they win out. Who is going to get more love if those teams slip?

Oklahoma State would end up with the single biggest win and wouldn't have a title game (good or bad?). K State will help them in the short term also.

Wisconsin has some good matchups on paper - Mich St, Penn St, and Illinois all have 1 loss at the moment. But how much of a difference would beating a 2-3 loss team for a second time (Mich St/Nebraska) is the title game make on the same day that Ok State takes down Oklahoma?

Stanford also has some good matchups where they stand now and voters will see the Oregon game as huge. But they just got leaped by Wisconsin. Does having the likable Heisman frontrunner help them?

Clemson and Boise probably have no chance unless they are the only two undefeateds left and even at that, is it possible that a 1-loss SEC team (or maybe even a 1-loss Oklahoma) could keep either out?

Last scenario - Alabama finishes undefeated all alone, while LSU ends up in a pack with a bunch of 1-loss teams. If the Nov 5 Alabama-LSU matchup is a classic and all those other teams lose games they shouldn't, would we get the first SEC vs. SEC National Championship?

You guys are all idiots.

sherm03;936234 wrote:
I'm sick of the argument that a playoff is the best option because it is the only way to crown a "true champion" or the "best team." It's not.

The goal IMO is (and should be) to crown the former, not the latter.

enigmaax;936729 wrote:Last scenario - Alabama finishes undefeated all alone, while LSU ends up in a pack with a bunch of 1-loss teams. If the Nov 5 Alabama-LSU matchup is a classic and all those other teams lose games they shouldn't, would we get the first SEC vs. SEC National Championship?

I don't think we'll see a SEC vs. SEC championship game. Just like when OSU and Michigan were 1 and 2, they will give another conference a shot. (I really believed OSU and Michigan deserved to play for the title as OSU barely beat Michigan at home. I thought they were the two best teams, and had they played again we would never have known how overrated they both were.)

I'm rooting for the winner of Alabama/LSU to be undefeated as well as Oklahoma (nobody will get upset if Oklahoma State is undefeated, so in my perfect scenario it has to be Oklahoma), Wisconsin, Stanford, Clemson and Boise. If all those teams are left out, they would all be pissed and then maybe we can get a playoff. (The B1G and Pac 12 champs getting left out would be awesome to me because those are the conferences most opposed to a playoff.)

I'm also rooting for either Bama/LSU, Oklahoma, Boise, Wisconsin, and Clemson to go undefeated. If you are honest with yourself, there is no way you can pick who the best 2 teams in the country are. #playoff

shit, if a playoff doesnt mean anything..the Cavaliers would have 2 NBA championships.

Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Kansas State - 2 of the 3 will have at least 1 loss
LSU/Alabama - 1 of the 2 will have a loss
Stanford still has at USC, vs Oregon and vs Notre Dame, Pac 12 Title Game (Arizona State)
Clemson still has vs North Carolina, at Georgia Tech, at South Carolina, ACC Title Game (Virginia Tech/Georgia Tech)

Looks like Boise and Wisconsin should win out, but we'll see if either end up with the BCS ranking high enough to make the title game.

Azubuike24;936870 wrote:Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Kansas State - 2 of the 3 will have at least 1 loss
LSU/Alabama - 1 of the 2 will have a loss
Stanford still has at USC, vs Oregon and vs Notre Dame, Pac 12 Title Game (Arizona State)
Clemson still has vs North Carolina, at Georgia Tech, at South Carolina, ACC Title Game (Virginia Tech/Georgia Tech)

Looks like Boise and Wisconsin should win out, but we'll see if either end up with the BCS ranking high enough to make the title game.

If Bama/LSU and Oklahoma are undefeated, an undefeated Boise or Wisconsin will most likely be sitting out looking in. If you are a Bronco or Badger fan, you need to hope for all of those teams to lose one game.

I think the top four is pretty much set up as the final four. If the winners of LSU/Bama and Oklahoma/OkSt finish undefeated they will meet in the championship game.

FatHobbit;936795 wrote:I don't think we'll see a SEC vs. SEC championship game. Just like when OSU and Michigan were 1 and 2, they will give another conference a shot. (I really believed OSU and Michigan deserved to play for the title as OSU barely beat Michigan at home. I thought they were the two best teams, and had they played again we would never have known how overrated they both were.)

The B1G and Pac 12 champs getting left out would be awesome to me because those are the conferences most opposed to a playoff.

I don't think it will happen either, but there are a few major differences between this year and the OSU/Michigan year. 1) They played in the last game of the season, so almost by default Michigan was going to lose votes, plus Florida had a later game to get themselves fresh in the minds of voters - basically, Michigan had no time/chance to rebound. 2) Florida had beaten a better schedule than Michigan. This year, if there's a crowd of one loss teams that includes LSU, they will have had time to rebound and climb back over people and will still likely have more/better wins than any of the other teams in the group.

On the other point, I've thought for a while that the only thing that would jumpstart serious playoff support would be an undefeated Bee One Gee team being left out. The B1G pretty much drives the bus when it comes to the major decisions (read: keeping an archaic system in place), so until they feel like they've missed out on something that conversation won't go anywhere.

Pick6;936862 wrote:****, if a playoff doesnt mean anything..the Cavaliers would have 2 NBA championships.

I find the NBA system to be one of, if not the closest to crowning a "real" champion because despite the fact that they allow too many teams in, it isn't as though a team can get lucky/hot for one or two games and find itself playing for a title. Playing a series significantly decreases the opportunity of a relatively mediocre team suddenly being crowned a champion. Even when a low seed wins it all, they've won 16(?) games to do it. Problem there is that you could in theory have a record of 16-12 in the playoffs and be the champ. Not really spectacular.