Yama Hama wrote: Try telling Florida, or TCU, or Boise State that they don't even make the top EIGHT. Then see how long that lasts.

So... why exactly would you have to tell them that? All 3 of them are in the top 8 of the BCS.

Even if you kept the automatic bids only Boise State gets left out. Which still sucks for them, but how is Boise State getting left out worse than Boise State, TCU, Cincinnati, and Florida (although I think Bama proved they weren't worthy) all being left out?

Flawed logic ftw!

jordo212000 wrote:

Yama Hama wrote:
College football isn't like every other sport. Why would you want to make it as lame as every other sport?

God forbid they decide who plays in the championship game on the field...

Yeah because it would ONLY effect the championship game right? :rolleyes:

Get real. In an 8-team playoff Ohio State could lose to Navy, USC, Toledo, and New Mexico State and still make the playoffs.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:

Yama Hama wrote:

jordo212000 wrote: That has to be the biggest cop-out yet for the BCS. "people will still complain"

People complaining is the only reason the BCS would have to change. So you sit here and complain about there not being a playoff and expect the BCS to change to a playoff and then dismiss complaining as a cop-out. Lol that is a pretty bad argument.

Why would the BCS want to change their system unless it stopped people from complaining? It provides amazing games (USC vs Texas, Boise vs. Oklahoma, OSU vs. Miami) makes a shit ton of money and people come to the games, watch the games, and enjoy themselves. Other than a very loud vocal minority, they have no reason to change. If the bitching would continue after they implemented a playoff, why change to begin with?

If you take something like 12 teams, the bitching from teams left out (like #13 or #14) would be illogical. The bitching right now, is VERY logical, especially when all the undefeated teams are ranked in the top 10, with no way to determine who is the best of them. If you're #13, with one loss or more, you're bitching is just that. bitching. If you're #3, undefeated, and the only reason you havent moved up is because the SYSTEM WON'T ALLOW YOU, you're "bitching" is quite justified. Again, tell me who the better team is out of the 5 undefeated teams left? Can you?

Yes I can. Alabama.

trep14 wrote:
Huh, I wasn't aware every other sport was lame. In fact, I think its the other way around...you have coaches who quit on their teams before bowl games and undefeated teams that are left playing each other for no particular reason, just for the sake of playing. You're right that college football isn't like every other sport, but you can definitely make a case that college football has the lamest postseason.

Clearly you've never been to a bowl game if thats your opinion.

trep14 wrote: People don't seem to understand that there is little parity between the toughness of conferences any more. Every team has three or four games in a given season that they have to get up for, then they sleep walk through the rest. TCU beat Utah, BYU, and Clemson. This year Texas had tough games with Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State, and Nebraska. Everyone else (i.e. Baylor, A&M, Kansas, etc.) are as bad as any of the given teams that you listed above.

Hardly as much of a difference as you'd want to make it out to be. Texas is getting in to the NC game based solely on name recognition.

They are not as bad. They are in fact much better than the teams listed. The Mountain West and WAC were a combined 8-21 vs. BCS conference teams for a whopping .276 winning percentage, and that even includes TCU and Boise State. Take those two out and it is 5-21.

And someone tell me why Boise State gets more credit for beating New Mexico State than Ohio State does.

Cleveland Buck wrote: And someone tell me why Boise State gets more credit for beating New Mexico State than Ohio State does.

Ohio State will get much more credit for beating Oregon than Boise State did if they win the Rose Bowl, so it goes both ways. I don't really see anybody giving them credit for beating New Mexico State anyways.

People still try to downplay that win for Boise.

If the original poster can prove that Texas and Alabama are better than any of these 3: TCU, Boise State, Cinci, then I'll agree with him.

*crickets*

It needs to be either 16 teams(11 conference bids, 5 at large), or 8(6 BCS champions + undefeated mid majors) and it would be fair and actually determine the champion.

IMO the only people that should be in favor of the BCS is the people employed by it and the power conferences. Clearly the playoff favors the fan

A playoff favors the large schools and would go a long way toward destroying the competitive balance that the last 20 years have advanced toward.

Can't crush the small schools? Just eliminate the bowl games and stick them in unfavorable playoff seedings...that'll teach them to be uppity.

NNN wrote: A playoff favors the large schools and would go a long way toward destroying the competitive balance that the last 20 years have advanced toward.

Can't crush the small schools? Just eliminate the bowl games and stick them in unfavorable playoff seedings...that'll teach them to be uppity.

Ok, thats just a flat out lie. How on earth does a playoff favor the large schools more than the current system does?

Mooney44Cards wrote:

trep14 wrote:
Huh, I wasn't aware every other sport was lame. In fact, I think its the other way around...you have coaches who quit on their teams before bowl games and undefeated teams that are left playing each other for no particular reason, just for the sake of playing. You're right that college football isn't like every other sport, but you can definitely make a case that college football has the lamest postseason.

Clearly you've never been to a bowl game if thats your opinion.

Ok....what are they playing to prove? Who is the best mid-major? Of course their fans are going to care, just like I'm going to care whether or not Ohio State beats Oregon...but at the end of the day, their win isn't going to prove much in the grand scheme of things...

yeah all these meaningless bowl games are terrific...wouldn't want to to jeopardize that with postseason games that actually matter

let me just say that it makes absolutely no fucking sense not to have a playoff, and the regular season is important argument is complete and utter horse shit

Yama Hama wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:

Yama Hama wrote:

jordo212000 wrote: That has to be the biggest cop-out yet for the BCS. "people will still complain"

People complaining is the only reason the BCS would have to change. So you sit here and complain about there not being a playoff and expect the BCS to change to a playoff and then dismiss complaining as a cop-out. Lol that is a pretty bad argument.

Why would the BCS want to change their system unless it stopped people from complaining? It provides amazing games (USC vs Texas, Boise vs. Oklahoma, OSU vs. Miami) makes a shit ton of money and people come to the games, watch the games, and enjoy themselves. Other than a very loud vocal minority, they have no reason to change. If the bitching would continue after they implemented a playoff, why change to begin with?

If you take something like 12 teams, the bitching from teams left out (like #13 or #14) would be illogical. The bitching right now, is VERY logical, especially when all the undefeated teams are ranked in the top 10, with no way to determine who is the best of them. If you're #13, with one loss or more, you're bitching is just that. bitching. If you're #3, undefeated, and the only reason you havent moved up is because the SYSTEM WON'T ALLOW YOU, you're "bitching" is quite justified. Again, tell me who the better team is out of the 5 undefeated teams left? Can you?

Yes I can. Alabama.

Ok. That's cool. But I say TCU would beat Alabama. So what do you do now? You can't say, "hey, we'll find out on the field!!" BECAUSE WE NEVER FIND OUT ON THE FIELD.

And for the record, you WILL be on here right, when Texas beats Alabama so I can call you out on all this? Because if you can honestly tell me right now you KNOW without a doubt that Alabama is the best team in the country, and then they get beat, that shows the flaws of your (and the BCS's) logic. You CANT know who the best team is lol! They haven't even played the NC game yet! Also, the undefeated team with the best offense and defense combination is not even playing in that game, so it still won't determine anything!

derek bomar wrote: let me just say that it makes absolutely no fucking sense not to have a playoff, and the regular season is important argument is complete and utter horse shit

as I said before, yeah the regular season is important, but the post-season is the least important of all other sports. Do you think Brian Kelly would be leaving Cincy right now if they were playing in the semi-finals? I don't. But he is, because win or lose, that game doesn't mean anything

Yama Hama wrote:

jordo212000 wrote:

Yama Hama wrote:
Uhh ohh, here go these crazy playoff guys again....can't even agree on what kind of playoff they want but want to completely change the entire dynamic of the greatest sport on earth.

I'd take that over the BCS. At least they are settling it on the field. What is so crazy about wanting a system just like every other sport THAT WORKS

College football isn't like every other sport. Why would you want to make it as lame as every other sport?

The "lame" NFL seems to be doing pretty well.

THE BCS IS BETTER!

Than the old system of course. I'm here to provide a voice of reason, not whether the BCS is better than a playoff system.

But guys, lets realize what college football was doing BEFORE the BCS. Teams ending the season ranked #1 and #2 most likely would not face each other unless they resided in conferences with tie ins to the same bowl. This allowed for split national championships. I know this happened once in the BCS, but only because the AP went against what they were supposed to do, and hence removed from the BCS formula.


In my opinion, I don't think we need the playoff system. Would it be better/would it settle things on the field? Yes. I'm not disagreeing with that. But, money talks, and the current system allows for the most revenue to be generated. It's a sad fact, and it affects the TCU's of the world whose preseason ranking and lack of hype cost them a chance at playing for a national championship.

I think something that would definitely help college football in general, is the elimination of preseason polls and rankings

i love how ohio st gets a bcs bowl every year by default cause of playing in the big 10, big 10 worst conference in football oregon 38 ohio st 17

grass_licker wrote: i love how ohio st gets a bcs bowl every year by default cause of playing in the big 10, big 10 worst conference in football oregon 38 ohio st 17

ok, that really doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, but ok.

lhslep134 wrote: THE BCS IS BETTER!

Than the old system of course. I'm here to provide a voice of reason, not whether the BCS is better than a playoff system.

But guys, lets realize what college football was doing BEFORE the BCS. Teams ending the season ranked #1 and #2 most likely would not face each other unless they resided in conferences with tie ins to the same bowl. This allowed for split national championships. I know this happened once in the BCS, but only because the AP went against what they were supposed to do, and hence removed from the BCS formula.


In my opinion, I don't think we need the playoff system. Would it be better/would it settle things on the field? Yes. I'm not disagreeing with that. But, money talks, and the current system allows for the most revenue to be generated. It's a sad fact, and it affects the TCU's of the world whose preseason ranking and lack of hype cost them a chance at playing for a national championship.

1. The AP wasn't "supposed" to do anything. The AP did not ask to be part of the BCS formula, nor did they agree to acknowledge said formula.
2. The AP INSISTED on being removed from the BCS formula; the BCS did not initiate that removal.
3. The BCS only guarantees the top two teams according to its own formula meet. The reason for the split title even with the BCS was because the #1 team in both human polls DIDN'T make the title game and the coaches were forced to vote on a #1 team based on the computer's feedback, not their own judgment.

That split title led to a drastic change in the BCS formula (elimination of SOS is one example) and the BCS has tweaked its computer formulas several times. If you applied the current formula(s) to the year of the split title, USC would have played in the BCS National Championship that year. How much confidence can you have in a system whose yearly changes can have such drastically different results from year-to-year?

It is better than the old system. It is probably not better than a playoff system, though the premise could just as easily be applied to determining playoff participants. But whether its better or not, the playoff isn't going to happen for reasons completely outside the desire for more balanced competition. And unfortunately, those other reasons (money is the primary reason) justifiably mean a lot more to the big picture at this juncture.

grass_licker wrote: i love how ohio st gets a bcs bowl every year by default cause of playing in the big 10, big 10 worst conference in football oregon 38 ohio st 17

do you also love how they have won more of them than they have lost, or the fact that 4 of those BCS berths were at large, not auto?

Mooney44Cards wrote:

trep14 wrote:
Huh, I wasn't aware every other sport was lame. In fact, I think its the other way around...you have coaches who quit on their teams before bowl games and undefeated teams that are left playing each other for no particular reason, just for the sake of playing. You're right that college football isn't like every other sport, but you can definitely make a case that college football has the lamest postseason.

Clearly you've never been to a bowl game if thats your opinion.

I've been to 8 bowl games in my lifetime, 4 of them OSU bowl games, and the only two I gave two shits about was the OSU/Miami and Florida State/OU game. You seem to be arguing that we are saying bowl games are pointless; well, yes and no. Of course they're not pointless to the teams and fans of each team. IDC if OSU is playing Mount Union, I want them to win and a lot of bowls are fun to watch. But they don't accomplish anything. How pissed off do you think you'd be if you played for Cincy right now? You went there because they're in a BCS conference, they've won that conference the last two years, and are undefeated this year, and they have NO chance to win the national championship. Tell me how "exciting" it is to finish their season being left out, than having a chance to advance and at least have a shot to play for what every team wants, and that's to win a national championship.

So....despite the fact that no one can agree on a playoff format, we still want change because "anything is better" than what we have now. Folks that was the argument FOR the BCS. Now, 10 years later the whiners are still whining. If we have a 4 team playoff, people will whine for 8, if we have 8, they will whine for 16. College football is more popular than ever, what smart business makes a complete change while its on the upswing?

If there was a 16 team playoff and every conference winner was automatically in and then have some at large teams, EVERY team has a shot (like basketball) to win the National Championship. You may ask why is that important? Well, it makes a Ball State vs Central Michigan regular season game important because it has playoff implications. Right now it isn't important. Making every game important in college football and crowning a national champion at the end of the year should be the goal.

I will be watching my school playing to win a REAL national championship this weekend.