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.

Let ME know when these alleged facts show up, and yeah, then maybe we'll talk. Ignorance gets ignorance, as the saying goes.

I know im a little late in the convo..but I prefer a 4 round, 16 team playoff.

No first round byes, high seed gets home field clear out. Neutral site for the championship game.

Yama Hama wrote:
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.

You just perfectly proved why the BCS system is garbage. Respect for a conference has absolutely no bearing on how good a conference actually is. It is all subjective and has no basis in reality.

Yes, people will be angry when they are left out of a playoff system, but at least teams would have a greater chance to prove how good they actually are.

I've read this thread off and on the last couple days. I've seen this mentioned quite a few times, or at least something close to it, but I'll say it again.

College football is the only sport where a team can go undefeated and still have NO CHANCE to play for a national title. With a playoff that gives an automatic berth to all conference champions, that is no longer the case. You can say that the champions of the smaller conferences aren't better than second-place finishers in the power conferences, and while that may be true in some cases, it shouldn't matter. A team that wins all of its games and gets left out of the championship picture has a right to complain. A team who loses a game, while still a very good team, has no right to complain about being left out because they didn't take care of business every week.

That said, I think with a 16 team playoff, it would be a rare occasion for a championship-caliber team to be left out. If you have 11 automatic bids and 5 at-large bigs, you're still going to have 11 teams from the power conferences in the playoffs. You would obviously have to find a way to choose the 5 at-large bids, most likely using a system similar to the BCS or a selection committee, but more often than not, all the "title contenders" would be included.

Let's look at this season, for example.

Automatic bids:

Georgia Tech - ACC
Texas - Big 12
Cincinnati - Big East
Ohio State - Big Ten
Alabama - SEC
Oregon - PAC-10
East Carolina - Conf USA
TCU - Mountain West
Troy - Sun Belt
Boise St. - WAC
Central Michigan - MAC

At large bigs (based on BCS rankings):

Florida
Iowa
Va Tech
LSU
Penn State

Teams that just missed:

BYU
Miami
WVU
Pitt
Oregon State

Playoff matchups:

Troy at Alabama
ECU at Texas
CMU at Cincinnati
LSU at TCU
Penn State at Florida
Boise State at Va Tech
Iowa at Oregon
GT at Ohio State

Now, I'm sure you make a case for team like BYU, Miami, etc. that were left out in favor of some of the other at-large teams, but here's the thing...they've all lost at least 2 games. Under this playoff system, there would be teams that might complain about being left out. However, they would not be UNDEFEATED. BYU and Miami may be better than Troy and East Carolina, but at least they had the chance to win all their games or win their conference to get into the playoffs, whereas Boise, TCU, and Cincy all accomplished those goals, yet they have no chance at a national title. There's always going to be someone unhappy, just like bubble teams in NCAA basketball, but under a playoff, you get the chance on the field to earn a national title. You won't see that chance taken away from an undefeated football team that could arguably be as good as one of the teams playing in the title game.

There are 34 bowl games, which means that 68 teams are playing post-season games this year. If you take 16 teams out of that pool, but still allow 26 bowl games to take place, there is still plenty of revenue generated by those games. Some of the first round playoff matchups may not generate that much revenue, but I guarantee you that the rest of the playoff games would. Play some of the playoff games in the bowl venues and keep the sponsors, if you really want to.

I've read good points on both sides of this argument throughout the thread, but I don't see how a playoff would be detrimental to college football, whether it be from a competitive standpoint or from a revenue standpoint. I just don't see how there couldn't be a scenario created that could give us the best of both worlds, settling a champion on the field, while still generating enough revenue to benefit the universities.

And finally, if we can't agree that all conference champions should get an automatic bid to the playoffs, wouldn't it at least make sense to have some type of playoff? Even if we take the top 8 or top 16 teams according to the BCS rasnkings and have a playoff, that's still going to include any team that's actually capable of winning a playoff championship. Personally, I don't think that would be fair to a Troy, ECU, or CMU, but I can also see the viewpoint that there's no way those teams would win the title, especially after already losing multiple games. Wouldn't some sort of "on the field" championship be better than the current system?

This sounds pretty good to me, which has already been mentioned somewhere on here.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AqwXVoL0xx240KB9XZY4uyocvrYF?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

^^^ I agree with this post.

How would you determine the seeding though? You know people will say its unfair that Troy would have to play Alabama in the first round. I say use the current BCS formula to do the seedings and then go from there.

Yeah, seeding would be determined by a formula similar to the current BCS formula, or by a selection committee like NCAA basketball.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
Let ME know when these alleged facts show up, and yeah, then maybe we'll talk. Ignorance gets ignorance, as the saying goes.

THIS is your excuse for acting like a 12 year old? Grow up dude.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: Since you guys are so big on the bottom line, the bottom line of college football is WINS AND LOSSES. If your Mt. West champion is sitting there at 13-0, and your "great" SEC team is sitting there with 3 losses, hell yes you're taking the undefeated team. If you want to continue to play; WIN. It's like that in every other sport, at every other level in the country. Why do we baby college football players?

The argument is about taking a 3-loss SEC team over an undefeated MWC champion. It is about taking a 5-loss Sun Belt team over a 3-loss team from any other conference.

Either it is about wins and losses or it isn't. If it IS, then an autobid for winning a conference with 5 losses cannot be part of your equation. You can't say to one team, "you should have won more", then turn around to another team and say, "well, even though you didn't win very much, we'll still take you."

If a playoff were even a remote possibility, there would either be no autobids, only autobids for the current AQ conferences, or the requirements for playing in the highest division would be such that all those non-AQ schools that are just taking up space would be forced down a level.

The funny thing about this argument is people get so mad at those of us who shoot holes in their "perfect" system and it ends with basically saying we'd just have to accept the flaws. The problem is, the onus isn't on us. Until you think of a system that makes everyone happy, including those with the current leverage (because nobody is going to give that up), it is you who must accept the flaws. Replacing one set of flaws with another isn't a solution and it isn't any better.

Mooney44Cards wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
Let ME know when these alleged facts show up, and yeah, then maybe we'll talk. Ignorance gets ignorance, as the saying goes.

THIS is your excuse for acting like a 12 year old? Grow up dude.

Ok, so now your argument has changed from "What about the money??? People will still complain!!!!!!" to "grow up, you guys are so immature!!!".

enigmaax wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: Since you guys are so big on the bottom line, the bottom line of college football is WINS AND LOSSES. If your Mt. West champion is sitting there at 13-0, and your "great" SEC team is sitting there with 3 losses, hell yes you're taking the undefeated team. If you want to continue to play; WIN. It's like that in every other sport, at every other level in the country. Why do we baby college football players?

The argument is about taking a 3-loss SEC team over an undefeated MWC champion. It is about taking a 5-loss Sun Belt team over a 3-loss team from any other conference.

Either it is about wins and losses or it isn't. If it IS, then an autobid for winning a conference with 5 losses cannot be part of your equation. You can't say to one team, "you should have won more", then turn around to another team and say, "well, even though you didn't win very much, we'll still take you."

If a playoff were even a remote possibility, there would either be no autobids, only autobids for the current AQ conferences, or the requirements for playing in the highest division would be such that all those non-AQ schools that are just taking up space would be forced down a level.

The funny thing about this argument is people get so mad at those of us who shoot holes in their "perfect" system and it ends with basically saying we'd just have to accept the flaws. The problem is, the onus isn't on us. Until you think of a system that makes everyone happy, including those with the current leverage (because nobody is going to give that up), it is you who must accept the flaws. Replacing one set of flaws with another isn't a solution and it isn't any better.

Every system is going to have its flaws. No one thinks the NCAA tournament in basketball is perfect. However, there are significantly less flaws in it than if they randomly selected Texas to play Kansas this year and everyone got a consolation game. You don't hear fans of the bubble teams that are left out each year talking about reforming the system, though they may complain about being left out.

At the end of the day, how much can a three loss team really complain? Once again, you take care of business on the field, you have nothing to complain about, you have an opportunity at the national championship, something the current system does not allow for. Thus, it is still absolutely about winning.

trep14 wrote: , so now your argument has changed from "What about the money??? People will still complain!!!!!!" to "grow up, you guys are so immature!!!".

Umm there's nothing left to argue. I'm not going to bicker like a little kid that your ideas are stupid and mine are sweet. The minute you guys started promoting a playoff that includes Troy I stopped listening.

trep - The argument is always going to end with money, regardless of whatever other points are discussed.

Are you pushing for a playoff to give the best teams an opportunity to win a title or to give the little guy a chance to win a title?

When you say, "you take care of business on the field", but then turn around and give an automatic bid to a 5-loss (that plays lesser competition to boot) over ANY 3-loss team, you have just killed your own philosophy. That 5-loss team DID NOT TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS ON THE FIELD. They lost 5 games. A conference is simply a group of schools who agree to play each other every year. Why is the fact that you made your scheduling a little more manageable more important than actually winning more games than someone else?

So if you're gonna punish good teams for losing 2-3 games you're forcing the OSU's of the world to schedule MORE New Mexico States and LESS USCs. Man you guys are right, trading an exciting 14 week season for a somewhat exciting 4 week playoff is AWESOME!

Mooney44Cards wrote: So if you're gonna punish good teams for losing 2-3 games you're forcing the OSU's of the world to schedule MORE New Mexico States and LESS USCs. Man you guys are right, trading an exciting 14 week season for a somewhat exciting 4 week playoff is AWESOME!

that's pretty much what texas did in scheduling louisiana-monroe, @wyoming, utep, and ucf. they won those four games by a combined margin 199-40 and now head straight to the national championship game because a computer and a poll said so...at least wth a playoff, texas would have to earn it on the field after scheduling those cupcakes

btw, the regular season was garbage this year

dazedconfused wrote: that's pretty much what texas did in scheduling louisiana-monroe, @wyoming, utep, and ucf. they won those four games by a combined margin 199-40 and now head straight to the national championship game because a computer and a poll said so...at least wth a playoff, texas would have to earn it on the field after scheduling those cupcakes

btw, the regular season was garbage this year

Ah, man. You just defeated your own argument again. Now you are down on Texas for playing four cupcakes and act as though that somehow makes them undeserving of their title shot. But you want a playoff to automatically include a team who could beat seven of those same teams and lose five other games?

And if you have no faith in a computer and a poll, how are you going to complete your bracket? There has to be some way of determining the at-large bids you offer. Are you just going to take the team with the highest number of wins, regardless of who they played, their conference, or whatever? How would you break a tie if you have ten teams who win 9 games (after your 11 autobids)?

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".

It's hard to debate on an internet message forum, but here goes . . .

Yes, a playoff would be hard to implement because of all the parties involved and the changes it would create. But remember, we already have a playoff- a 2-team playoff. We don't need to create a playoff, we need to expand the playoff.
From above:
Argument 1: people will still complain anyway- Maybe, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a change for the better.
#2: affecting student's grades- Div 2, D-3, FCS all have playoffs deep into Dec. Haven't heard that argument on this site, but college presidents and AD's say it all the time and it makes me want to throw up.
#3: no, it won't ruin the bowls. They already mean nothing, except, yay- we won our last game!! Now let's hand out balloons and trophies, etc.
#4: the old system was worse- yes it was. That was 12 years ago- time to scrap the BCS.
#5: college football is different- The worst argument of all. Different does not equal better
#6: already elaborated
#7: bad argument, but IMO the one holding the most sway. What I hate is they hypocrisy of the college presidents, AD's, etc. If they just came out and said "We could care less about a real champion, we just like making lots and lots of money", I could swallow it easier. But using all those other arguments is shallow and illogical.

The Rose Bowl is an over 100 year old tradition, try prying that one from the cold dead hands of the people of pasadena. Or the Big 10 or Pac10 commissioners.

Mooney44Cards wrote: The Rose Bowl is an over 100 year old tradition, try prying that one from the cold dead hands of the people of pasadena. Or the Big 10 or Pac10 commissioners.

These are the primary culprits in hindering any progress toward a playoff. There have been playoff proposals drawn up by major conference members. These proposals can't get past the meeting room door, mainly because the Big 10 and to a lesser (but still great) extent the Pac 10 won't even consider the thought.

They held up the current system by at least six years (remember the Coalition and Alliance?). And while they've made some concessions to allow the BCS to happen, they're still catered to more than anyone else.

jhay78 wrote: #7: bad argument, but IMO the one holding the most sway. What I hate is they hypocrisy of the college presidents, AD's, etc. If they just came out and said "We could care less about a real champion, we just like making lots and lots of money", I could swallow it easier. But using all those other arguments is shallow and illogical.

I would only say, it isn't a bad argument because money is important to schools and to the non-revenue sports. I do hate the sorry excuses like academics, but I understand they would jeopardize their entire existence if they came right out and said it was about money. They would pretty much be acknowledging themselves as a business and some of the perks (tax exemption) would be done. If that happened, once again, you'd be looking at ways to make up for the lost money and just getting further and further away from a playoff being viable for financial reasons.

Nothing wrong with his theory but I think he is most likely a buckeye fan or a fan of a national power team. Point is, If OSU were to go unbeaten and not get in the tittle. People on here would have a shit fit as would I with Michigan. I think it is going to take a superpower to not make the game for there to be a change. The teams that get it have more fans because fans = money. One year there will be 3 big time programs who go unbeaten and there will be playoffs IMO.

Here's one for those for a playoff system. Can you honestly say that in most years that the best 2 teams play for the National Championship? Those that have earned it through the regular season and belonged there?

1998: Tennessee V. Florida State
1999: Florida State V. Virginia Tech,
2000: Oklahoma V. Florida State
2001: Miami V. Nebraska
2002: Ohio State V. Miami,
2003: Oklahoma v. LSU
2004: USC V. Oklahoma
2005: USC V. Texas
2006: Ohio State V. Florida
2007: Ohio State V. LSU
2008: Florida V. Oklahoma
2009: Texas V Alabama

Now can you honestly say that in most of those years the best two teams were not matched up?

slide22 wrote: Here's one for those for a playoff system. Can you honestly say that in most years that the best 2 teams play for the National Championship? Those that have earned it through the regular season and belonged there?

1998: Tennessee V. Florida State
1999: Florida State V. Virginia Tech,
2000: Oklahoma V. Florida State
2001: Miami V. Nebraska
2002: Ohio State V. Miami,
2003: Oklahoma v. LSU
2004: USC V. Oklahoma
2005: USC V. Texas
2006: Ohio State V. Florida
2007: Ohio State V. LSU
2008: Florida V. Oklahoma
2009: Texas V Alabama

Now can you honestly say that in most of those years the best two teams were not matched up?

All of the bolded years there was controversy over who got in to the NC game. How do we know that Auburn wasn't better than Oklahoma or USC in 2004? Hell, how do we know that Boise shouldn't have been in the NC game over Florida in 2006? USC in 2003? Nebraska getting in to the NC game in 2001 was laughable. Thanks for bringing up this list, it truly proves what a joke the BCS system is.

slide22 wrote: Here's one for those for a playoff system. Can you honestly say that in most years that the best 2 teams play for the National Championship? Those that have earned it through the regular season and belonged there?

1998: Tennessee V. Florida State
1999: Florida State V. Virginia Tech,
2000: Oklahoma V. Florida State
2001: Miami V. Nebraska
2002: Ohio State V. Miami,
2003: Oklahoma v. LSU
2004: USC V. Oklahoma
2005: USC V. Texas
2006: Ohio State V. Florida
2007: Ohio State V. LSU
2008: Florida V. Oklahoma
2009: Texas V Alabama

Now can you honestly say that in most of those years the best two teams were not matched up?

this list is more of an argument FOR a playoff, rather than against...well done :shy:

trep14 wrote:

slide22 wrote: Here's one for those for a playoff system. Can you honestly say that in most years that the best 2 teams play for the National Championship? Those that have earned it through the regular season and belonged there?

1998: Tennessee V. Florida State
1999: Florida State V. Virginia Tech,
2000: Oklahoma V. Florida State
2001: Miami V. Nebraska
2002: Ohio State V. Miami,
2003: Oklahoma v. LSU
2004: USC V. Oklahoma
2005: USC V. Texas
2006: Ohio State V. Florida
2007: Ohio State V. LSU
2008: Florida V. Oklahoma
2009: Texas V Alabama

Now can you honestly say that in most of those years the best two teams were not matched up?

All of the bolded years there was controversy over who got in to the NC game. How do we know that Auburn wasn't better than Oklahoma or USC in 2004? Hell, how do we know that Boise shouldn't have been in the NC game over Florida in 2006? USC in 2003? Nebraska getting in to the NC game in 2001 was laughable. Thanks for bringing up this list, it truly proves what a joke the BCS system is.

Agree 100%

Keebler wrote:

trep14 wrote:

slide22 wrote: Here's one for those for a playoff system. Can you honestly say that in most years that the best 2 teams play for the National Championship? Those that have earned it through the regular season and belonged there?

1998: Tennessee V. Florida State
1999: Florida State V. Virginia Tech,
2000: Oklahoma V. Florida State
2001: Miami V. Nebraska
2002: Ohio State V. Miami,
2003: Oklahoma v. LSU
2004: USC V. Oklahoma
2005: USC V. Texas
2006: Ohio State V. Florida
2007: Ohio State V. LSU
2008: Florida V. Oklahoma
2009: Texas V Alabama

Now can you honestly say that in most of those years the best two teams were not matched up?

All of the bolded years there was controversy over who got in to the NC game. How do we know that Auburn wasn't better than Oklahoma or USC in 2004? Hell, how do we know that Boise shouldn't have been in the NC game over Florida in 2006? USC in 2003? Nebraska getting in to the NC game in 2001 was laughable. Thanks for bringing up this list, it truly proves what a joke the BCS system is.

Agree 100%

2008 was one of the worst years for the BCS IMO. An undefeated Utah team was completely ignored. There was more controversy over whether a one loss Texas or a one loss Oklahoma would get in than whether or not Utah deserved a shot. They just responded by smacking Alabama down.