Mooney44Cards wrote: 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?

Yama Hama wrote: No thank you playoffs.

I like things the way they are. No.....its not perfect, but no sport is. People bitch every year about the NCAA tournament and the bubble teams that didn't make it. The NFL regular season is boring and meaningless, wake me up when the playoffs start. NCAA basketball has a really boring regular season too. Duke-Carolina is great and all, but they play twice a year and we know they're both making the tournament anyways so what does it matter?

Imagine 2002 Ohio State fans. I am not an Ohio State fan but I remember everything about that 2002 season. Each game was like a playoff game, you knew the season hung in the balance. King Right 64 Y Shallow Swap would have still happened, but you would know that if Jenkins doesn't catch that pass from Krenzel, OSU could still end the season with 1 loss and make the playoffs. So maybe Musberger never utters the phrase "Holy Buckeye!" because a loss is not as big of a deal.

I've been to a bowl game before (2006 Fiesta Bowl) and loved everything about it. Wasn't thinking "Gee I hope the winner gets to go on to another round and play for the National Title!" It was perfect (even with an ND loss). OSU won that game and they were champions. Maybe not National Champs, but champions none the less. They got to celebrate and end their season with a win. Something that doesn't happen in a playoff format.

And everyone screams "playoffs!" yet no one can agree on how to do it. Do 4 teams get in? 8? 16? I have news for you: the conferences will not sign off on a playoff unless their champion is guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. So 4 teams is out. 8? That only leaves 2 spots for at-large bids. TCU and Boise, come on down! Florida....sorry maybe next year! 16? Yeah right. If anyone argues that a 4 loss team should have an opportunity to win the national championship....they're not a true fan of COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

Yes I'm sure I will get the arguments like "what about Team x from year x!?!" Well....sorry team x, life isn't fair. Neither is college football. But you went to a bowl game, ended your season with a victory, and can say you were undefeated. Maybe next time.

To all you Boise States, TCUs, Utahs, and Cincinnatis out there I say this: you knew this was possible. You KNOW you're not in one of the most respected conferences so you have to go the extra mile to be able say you have earned the right to be in the NC game. Scheduling Miami of Ohio, Virginia, and Southeast Missouri State in your out of conference games isn't helping and you know that. But that is the choice you make. If you want an easy win outside of your cupcake conference, know that it doesn't look good when you're bitching about not making the championship game.

College football ratings are going up every year. The SEC Championship game drew an 11.8 on the Nielson ratings. Thats UNREAL. Higher than most World Series games the past 5-7 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So here we are, on the verge of Bowl season. 34 games, and 34 teams that will end the season with a victory and enjoy a vacation and gifts in more than likely an exotic location.

Jawbreaker wrote: 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.

Mooney44Cards wrote: Ummm, its an opinion about sports. Why are you bringing my political stance into this and bashing my critical thinking skills? You're not going to win any arguments by bashing the messenger. That's how immature people discuss things. Lemme know when you wanna grow up and discuss facts without bashing people who disagree with you.

Jawbreaker wrote: 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.

Mooney44Cards wrote: You're defending a guy who is calling someone an idiot because he disagrees with him. Good company you're keepin there....

enigmaax wrote:

Jawbreaker wrote: 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.

I don't understand how making a regular season MAC game "more important" is good for the sport at all. Why would you want to reduce interest in what are now your marquee games for the benefit of a couple schools who will provide minimal to no return?

Would people really all of a sudden say, "dang, can't miss that MAC game because the winner of that conference is going to get fed to Alabama"? As it is, more MAC games ARE important because more teams have an opportunity to make a bowl game. Once most teams have been eliminated from contention for those consolation games, who is going to care?

jhay78 wrote: Worst arguments against a playoff:

1) people will still complain anyway
2) it will affect student-athletes and their grades/time in the classroom
3) it will destroy the bowls
4) the old system was worse than the current BCS, so let's keep it as is
5) college football is cool because it's different
6) the regular season will mean less
7) we're making lots and lots of money now- who cares about a real champion?

All of the above arguments are logically flawed and intellectually embarassing to anyone with half a brain.
The only one that holds any argument is #6, and even then, with an 8-team playoff, regular season games will still be meaningful. Even now, under the current system, how meaningful were TCU's, Boise State's, and Cincinnati's regular seasons? Their regular seasons would mean more with an 8-team playoff.

jhay78 wrote: Worst arguments against a playoff:

1) people will still complain anyway
2) it will affect student-athletes and their grades/time in the classroom
3) it will destroy the bowls
4) the old system was worse than the current BCS, so let's keep it as is
5) college football is cool because it's different
6) the regular season will mean less
7) we're making lots and lots of money now- who cares about a real champion?

All of the above arguments are logically flawed and intellectually embarassing to anyone with half a brain.
The only one that holds any argument is #6, and even then, with an 8-team playoff, regular season games will still be meaningful. Even now, under the current system, how meaningful were TCU's, Boise State's, and Cincinnati's regular seasons? Their regular seasons would mean more with an 8-team playoff.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I say use the BCS method, but at the end of the season have #1-#4 have a playoff. The top 4 is always correct.....

That way keeps the "playoff-like" impotance on reg. season games, then avoids the controversy of having undefeated teams with multiple top 25 wins, etc. from being without a shot at the title.

Boom. Everyone's happy.

Yama Hama wrote:

jhay78 wrote: Worst arguments against a playoff:

1) people will still complain anyway
2) it will affect student-athletes and their grades/time in the classroom
3) it will destroy the bowls
4) the old system was worse than the current BCS, so let's keep it as is
5) college football is cool because it's different
6) the regular season will mean less
7) we're making lots and lots of money now- who cares about a real champion?

All of the above arguments are logically flawed and intellectually embarassing to anyone with half a brain.
The only one that holds any argument is #6, and even then, with an 8-team playoff, regular season games will still be meaningful. Even now, under the current system, how meaningful were TCU's, Boise State's, and Cincinnati's regular seasons? Their regular seasons would mean more with an 8-team playoff.

Please provide some facts that would make those arguments logically flawed.

Its easy for you all to say that my arguments are dumb and idiotic but in your minds anything that is against a playoff is dumb or idiotic and you cannot get into your brains that adding a playoff would have ramifications across the entire college football world. Sometimes things we can't foresee or imagine, but changes that happen nonetheless. If we could keep the regular season as meaningful as it is now and add a playoff to the end, then maybe it would be a good idea. But its not that easy.

So to those who say my argument is dumb and idiotic I say: learn how to debate and get back to me. If you can give some talking points as to why everything in my initial post is wrong, feel free, I will be happy to hear it. But to everyone else who debates like an 8 yr old, you're not helping your cause by sounding like a bunch of whiney 4th graders who want to make candy the only item on the lunch menu cuz it would be "cool".

dazedconfused wrote:
how are there complaints if there is a 16 team playoff complete with all 11 conferences getting a bid along with the 5 best at large bid teams? the regular season can still mean something because the highest seeded team would have homefield advantage up until the championship game, which would be played at neutral site rotating amongst miami, new orleans, glendale and pasadena.

every regular season game matters with this system. apply this system to what happened to florida this year. because they lost in the sec championship game, they would have to travel to tcu and alabama before even reaching the neutral site national championship game. alabama, due to winning that game and earning the number 1 seed in the bcs, gets to play three home games on their route to the championship game.

the system now has 34 postseason games in which only one matters - a solid three percent...not exactly hitting it out of the park. my proposed system (well also dan wetzel's from yahoo) features 15 postseason games and all 15 matter. plus we determine who the best team overall is on the field and not because of what some computer thought

Yama Hama wrote:

dazedconfused wrote:
how are there complaints if there is a 16 team playoff complete with all 11 conferences getting a bid along with the 5 best at large bid teams? the regular season can still mean something because the highest seeded team would have homefield advantage up until the championship game, which would be played at neutral site rotating amongst miami, new orleans, glendale and pasadena.

every regular season game matters with this system. apply this system to what happened to florida this year. because they lost in the sec championship game, they would have to travel to tcu and alabama before even reaching the neutral site national championship game. alabama, due to winning that game and earning the number 1 seed in the bcs, gets to play three home games on their route to the championship game.

the system now has 34 postseason games in which only one matters - a solid three percent...not exactly hitting it out of the park. my proposed system (well also dan wetzel's from yahoo) features 15 postseason games and all 15 matter. plus we determine who the best team overall is on the field and not because of what some computer thought

I would complain that I'd rather watch some 5-6 loss MAC team play a team of roughly equal skill in a bowl game than watch them get destroyed by the number one team in the country. Those kids from that MAC school get to go out with a win instead of a loss.

Sorry, I'm not interested in garbage teams playing in a playoff against the big boys. I'd rather watch garbage teams play garbage teams.

"Great job playing in a tough schedule against a great conference Team from SEC, but we're gonna take the MAC champion cuz they did ok against a garbage schedule in a garbage conference. Oh and we're also taking the Mountain West and Conference USA Champions. And don't forget the WAC. We know you're way better and would beat most of these teams but people complained that we needed a playoff so you don't get to come because you're the 3rd best team in the best conference in football. Oh yeah and tell your players, no more week-long reward vacation in an exotic place, your season is over."

Yama Hama wrote: Oh yeah and tell your players, no more week-long reward vacation in an exotic place, your season is over."

dazedconfused wrote: how are there complaints if there is a 16 team playoff complete with all 11 conferences getting a bid along with the 5 best at large bid teams?

dazedconfused wrote: the regular season can still mean something because the highest seeded team would have homefield advantage up until the championship game, which would be played at neutral site rotating amongst miami, new orleans, glendale and pasadena.

Yama Hama wrote: I would complain that I'd rather watch some 5-6 loss MAC team play a team of roughly equal skill in a bowl game than watch them get destroyed by the number one team in the country. Those kids from that MAC school get to go out with a win instead of a loss.

Sorry, I'm not interested in garbage teams playing in a playoff against the big boys. I'd rather watch garbage teams play garbage teams.

"Great job playing in a tough schedule against a great conference Team from SEC, but we're gonna take the MAC champion cuz they did ok against a garbage schedule in a garbage conference. Oh and we're also taking the Mountain West and Conference USA Champions. And don't forget the WAC. We know you're way better and would beat most of these teams but people complained that we needed a playoff so you don't get to come because you're the 3rd best team in the best conference in football. Oh yeah and tell your players, no more week-long reward vacation in an exotic place, your season is over."

enigmaax wrote: Because a 7-5 Sun Belt champion who hasn't beaten a current BCS conference foe in the history of its program doesn't deserve an automatic bid over a 1 or 2 or even 5 loss team from any of the major conferences.

That automatic bid thing works in basketball because the teams complaining at the end have 10-12 losses and mostly finish in the bottom half of their conferences. In football, you're talking about potentially dissing a team that lost two or three games and was 2nd or 3rd in its conference - for some team that already made a couple million dollars to LOSE.

enigmaax wrote:

dazedconfused wrote: the regular season can still mean something because the highest seeded team would have homefield advantage up until the championship game, which would be played at neutral site rotating amongst miami, new orleans, glendale and pasadena.

Again, who is going to fund that system? Now you are talking about cities who generate tens of millions of dollars for the sport EVERY YEAR, but you only want them to have a game once every four years?

And someone is probably going to throw that same money for these naming rights: The Tostitios First of Two National Semifinal Games played at a site to be determined after we know the winners of the FedEx First Game of Four Quarterfinals and Allstate Second Game of Four Quarterfinals.

Easier said than done. Really easy when you don't consider all factors.

dazedconfused wrote: if those cities still want to stage a meaningless bowl game in early january (something they already do now anyways), then let em...i don't give a fuck about them or their stupid meaningless bowl

dazedconfused wrote:

enigmaax wrote:

dazedconfused wrote: the regular season can still mean something because the highest seeded team would have homefield advantage up until the championship game, which would be played at neutral site rotating amongst miami, new orleans, glendale and pasadena.

Again, who is going to fund that system? Now you are talking about cities who generate tens of millions of dollars for the sport EVERY YEAR, but you only want them to have a game once every four years?

And someone is probably going to throw that same money for these naming rights: The Tostitios First of Two National Semifinal Games played at a site to be determined after we know the winners of the FedEx First Game of Four Quarterfinals and Allstate Second Game of Four Quarterfinals.

Easier said than done. Really easy when you don't consider all factors.

if those cities still want to stage a meaningless bowl game in early january (something they already do now anyways), then let em...i don't give a fuck about them or their stupid meaningless bowl