Yama Hama wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: And it's hilarious that you list all of the FCS national champions from the last few decades, and claim how repititious they are. Why don't you list the national champions from the BCS era, and see what you find. Go ahead, amuse me this this insane amount of parity you claim the BCS creates. Better yet, why don't you list the teams who have made more than 1 BCS game in that era. I'd be willing to bet that you would find that the same 8-10 teams are the ones we watch play in the BCS year after year after year. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, USC, Miami, and recently Georgia Tech and Alabama. And they're playing one of those same teams time after time after time. I don't even know why they have a BCS selection show. Why don't they just put the same 15 teams in a barrel at the beginning of the season, draw out names for BCS matchups, and skip the rest of the season. No one else is going to get a title shot anyways, last year and this year are proof of that; so why even mess with the season? Great thing the BCS has turned football in to. If this is what you want, and you're too blind to see that it's the exact same thing every year, then I feel sorry that you call yourself a "true" college football fan. The only thing true is that you can't see what a conglomeration of wealth, power, and archaic nostalgia for the way things used to be, and that the whitewigs in charge aren't going to let it change for anything, even if it means blatant corruption of a system that excludes, and does so proudly, equal opportunities for all 119 teams. If that's "real" college football to you, then I feel sorry for you my friend.

Since the BCS was implemented (1998), 12 different teams have made the BCS national championship game.

Since 1998, 15 different teams have made the FCS national championship game.

Since 1998, 9 different teams have made the DII national championship game.

Since 1998, 9 different teams have made the DIII national championship game.

They all seem about the same to me. Playoff or no playoff, its the same teams over and over.

I'm not arguing that it's not the same teams over and over, at every level. My previous post was to show you that the BCS is about on par with every other level of football, not more/ "better" as some like to claim or lesser. Myself, and those who would like to see a playoff are arguing about the WAY IT IS DONE that allows those same teams to make the National title game/BCS bowls year after year. FBS college football is the most subjective and least objective of the systems in place. As another poster said, I don't care if we have a playoff and the same teams make the BCS bowls routinely that make them now routinely. It's the idea that at least non-traditional teams that have a great year get a SHOT to.

I'm not expecting the landscape of college football to change drastically with a playoff, and I'm not saying we'll never see Texas, OSU, USC, Florida etc in the National title game again; because of tradition, recruiting, coaching etc, those programs are always going to be in contention. My point is they shouldn't be the ONLY programs that get the chance to be in contention, as the last two years in the BCS's system have proven. Can you imagine if the BCS was implimented 60 years ago, before a lot of these programs came to power? Army, Notre Dame and some of the Ivy league schools would have been the darling children of the BCS, and the "lesser" established, less known schools at the time (i.e. the schools listed at the beginning of this paragraph) would be in the position of where TCU and Boise State are today. That's the funny thing; today's blue-blood football programs were once in the same position as the schools they're so desperately trying to keep "beneath" them today. Because there was no system that held them back, they were freely allowed to come to power. Now that they have that power, they don't want to give it up and afford other schools that are trying to do the same thing, the opportunity they got early in their football history.

"Seems like this precious playoffs isn't really doing anything except making the elite teams even more elite. Sweet I can't wait til USC gets a freee pass for losing to a shitty Pac10 team and steamrolls through the playoffs most years.Ditto Florida, ditto OSU. Its funny but the BCS actually CREATES parity more than it prevents it. Since 1980, only Florida, Nebraska and Miami have won a NC more than twice."

"They all seem about the same to me. Playoff or no playoff, its the same teams over and over. "

-----------
Like I said, you looked at the numbers and realized what a joke the idea of the BCS creating parity was. If anything the BCS infringes on the parity in college football by eliminating teams from competition without affording them the opportunity to contend for the title.

Didn't make it all the way through 9 pages but i actually agree with a lot of what Yama Hama said in the OP. I love the fact that the original season is so important. That's what makes college football the best sport in America IMO. I know people don't like this argument but the OSU/UM game becomes almost pointless if both teams are going to enter a large playoff regardless of who wins. The same goes for all other big rivalries.

I think the perfect system would have to have a playoff but somehow keep the regular season very important. I would like to just see the 8 teams in the BCS bowls have a playoff. The BCS bowls are still very selective to get into so it would not make the regular season boring. Also i think this system would be interesting because in theory Alabama could play Florida in the National Championship. The same could also happen for OSU/UM. It probably wouldn't happen very often but it most likely would happen at some point and would be a real big deal.

Yama Hama wrote:

trep14 wrote:

Yama Hama wrote: This is fun, I throw numbers at you guys, you throw opinions, conjecture, and assumptions back at me.

"Yeah but.....but but UTAH!!! YA!!! And BOISE!!!" lol

Seriously you're not going to convince me or anyone by defending a bunch of teams from the Patty Cake Conference. Nor by promoting a playoff involving Troy (or some other Sun Belt champion). Nor by pointing to the other NCAA football divisions and saying "SEEE!!!!". All I see is the same thing in every sport. The same dozen teams winning championships every year. Adding a playoff would just delay the inevitable (on top of killing some serious influx of money for businesses around the 34 different bowl games around the country).

Well, there's your official concession on the "BCS creates parity!" argument. You threw a big fit when myself and others called that argument stupid, then you actually looked at the numbers and realized that it was.

It is what it is. You can make fun of the Patty Cake Conferences all you want, but Utah last year could play on the field with anyone, as could TCU this year, they have beaten some darn good teams. You can try to find all the numbers you want about why they or any other undefeated teams out there don't deserve a shot at the NC, but at the end of the day, I have one number for you and that is the zero in the loss column. The only reason Texas and Alabama are in the "championship" game is due to name recognition, not anything that they accomplished on the field over Cincy, Boise, and TCU. Maybe Texas and Alabama are the best two teams in college football this year. Maybe if there was a playoff they would inevitably meet in the championship game. Hell, maybe they would meet in the championship game every single year. But we don't know that. With a playoff, we would be guaranteed that the two best teams that are the most deserving are meeting for the national championship. For someone who hates assumptions so much, you're blindly supporting a system that relies on them. It really boggles my mind how anyone who is a fan of college football could support this kind of system if they weren't a member of the BCS committee.

As for all this nonsense about "no one can agree on how to implement a playoff!", I think most college football fans would be willing to get behind anything that isn't the BCS or the old system at this point. Seriously, everything has to start somewhere.

Do you have a serious reading comprehension problem? Where the hell was my "concession" to the BCS NOT creating parity. I just gave you numbers that show that the BCS created MORE parity than DII and DIII. All I said was that I see "same dozen teams winning championships every year" which is the way it is in every sport, no matter what. We're not going to get all 120 teams taking turns winning the NC. Its hard to define "parity" but when the BCS is producing more unique participants in the national championship game than 2 out of the other 3 divisions, I'd call that parity. Or at least the opposite of whatever you're accusing the BCS of.

Here's what a playoff does: it rewards teams for winning 4 straight games late in the season.
Here's what the BCS does: it rewards teams for a successful body of work over the course of a season.

Therefore: Utah, Boise, TCU, UC, Creampuff U, Two Hand Tag State, James Woods Junior High....YOUR SCHEDULE BLOWS. BE BETTER AT SCHEDULING AND HOPE FOR A LITTLE LUCK, WHICH EVERY CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM NEEDS.

I have news for you, a playoff doesn't match up the 2 best teams.

That is truly laughable. Does Cincy feel rewarded for going undefeated and not getting the opportunity to play for the prize? Boise State? TCU?

Ask the kids what they would rather have...a week in Arizona/ New Orleans to play in a meaningless game where they prove nothing or the opportunity to play in an exclusive playoff for the national championship because they earned it. Having an opportunity to play for the national championship would be the ultimate reward for a successful body of work during the course of the season. And I can't believe you're going to actually say that a team that runs through four quality opponents in four weeks is undeserving of being declared the best team in college football.

And once again, the BCS infringes on the parity in college football by automatically eliminating deserving teams from contention for the national championship. That is the opposite of parity; its "unique champions" are self-selected for other reasons (i.e. money) than for any reason on the field.

As for your comment about Utah, TCU, Boise, etc., I think this has already been addressed, but no one wants to play them. It is a lose-lose for the bigger schools, read this article:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709

Benito wrote: Didn't make it all the way through 9 pages but i actually agree with a lot of what Yama Hama said in the OP. I love the fact that the original season is so important. That's what makes college football the best sport in America IMO. I know people don't like this argument but the OSU/UM game becomes almost pointless if both teams are going to enter a large playoff regardless of who wins. The same goes for all other big rivalries.

I think the perfect system would have to have a playoff but somehow keep the regular season very important. I would like to just see the 8 teams in the BCS bowls have a playoff. The BCS bowls are still very selective to get into so it would not make the regular season boring. Also i think this system would be interesting because in theory Alabama could play Florida in the National Championship. The same could also happen for OSU/UM. It probably wouldn't happen very often but it most likely would happen at some point and would be a real big deal.

as I said on that same page, yes the current system has a very important regular season (unless you are Cincy, TCU, or Boise. Then you have to hope that one of the big boys will lose even though the big boys often don't play anybody out of conference, but I digress).

However the current system has the least important post-season in all of sports. What other sport has coaches taking other jobs before postseason games? Do you ever think that there would ever be a time where the Tampa Bay Rays manager would leave the Rays before the ALCS for the Mets. Nope, neither do I. The bowl games are pointless. Often they decide who is the prettier 7-5 team. Several of the opening bowl games aren't even profitable for the teams.

Yama Hama wrote:

trep14 wrote:

Yama Hama wrote: This is fun, I throw numbers at you guys, you throw opinions, conjecture, and assumptions back at me.

"Yeah but.....but but UTAH!!! YA!!! And BOISE!!!" lol

Seriously you're not going to convince me or anyone by defending a bunch of teams from the Patty Cake Conference. Nor by promoting a playoff involving Troy (or some other Sun Belt champion). Nor by pointing to the other NCAA football divisions and saying "SEEE!!!!". All I see is the same thing in every sport. The same dozen teams winning championships every year. Adding a playoff would just delay the inevitable (on top of killing some serious influx of money for businesses around the 34 different bowl games around the country).

Well, there's your official concession on the "BCS creates parity!" argument. You threw a big fit when myself and others called that argument stupid, then you actually looked at the numbers and realized that it was.

It is what it is. You can make fun of the Patty Cake Conferences all you want, but Utah last year could play on the field with anyone, as could TCU this year, they have beaten some darn good teams. You can try to find all the numbers you want about why they or any other undefeated teams out there don't deserve a shot at the NC, but at the end of the day, I have one number for you and that is the zero in the loss column. The only reason Texas and Alabama are in the "championship" game is due to name recognition, not anything that they accomplished on the field over Cincy, Boise, and TCU. Maybe Texas and Alabama are the best two teams in college football this year. Maybe if there was a playoff they would inevitably meet in the championship game. Hell, maybe they would meet in the championship game every single year. But we don't know that. With a playoff, we would be guaranteed that the two best teams that are the most deserving are meeting for the national championship. For someone who hates assumptions so much, you're blindly supporting a system that relies on them. It really boggles my mind how anyone who is a fan of college football could support this kind of system if they weren't a member of the BCS committee.

As for all this nonsense about "no one can agree on how to implement a playoff!", I think most college football fans would be willing to get behind anything that isn't the BCS or the old system at this point. Seriously, everything has to start somewhere.

I have news for you, a playoff doesn't match up the 2 best teams.

I have news for you: You're so far out of touch with reality it's hard to comprehend.

8 teams in a playoff= 6.7% of all FBS teams (120)

NFL- 12 teams in playoffs= 37.5% of all NFL teams
NCAA March Madness- 64 teams in tourney= 18.4% of Div-1 teams

An 8-team playoff would not be "like all the other sports"; it would still leave the regular season meaningful. Maybe the final two teams wouldn't be the "best" teams (however you want to define that), but they would've earned their place in that game by winning on the field.

Man if you would have read the first like 2 pages you would know that an 8 team playoff would have excluded one of the following this year: Florida, TCU, Boise State. Controversy? Welcome back to the equation! Florida is undefeated and number 1 all year and get excluded from a playoff? Yeah nobody would be screaming for change then!

Yama Hama wrote: Man if you would have read the first like 2 pages you would know that an 8 team playoff would have excluded one of the following this year: Florida, TCU, Boise State. Controversy? Welcome back to the equation! Florida is undefeated and number 1 all year and get excluded from a playoff? Yeah nobody would be screaming for change then!

then they shouldn't have lost. besides if you are going to do an eight team playoff, just use the top 8 in the bcs rankings. no need to have automatic bids for the six conference champs with a pool that small

due the conference champ bid thing if the playoff is 16

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: And it's hilarious that you list all of the FCS national champions from the last few decades, and claim how repititious they are. Why don't you list the national champions from the BCS era, and see what you find. Go ahead, amuse me this this insane amount of parity you claim the BCS creates. Better yet, why don't you list the teams who have made more than 1 BCS game in that era. I'd be willing to bet that you would find that the same 8-10 teams are the ones we watch play in the BCS year after year after year. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, USC, Miami, and recently Georgia Tech and Alabama. And they're playing one of those same teams time after time after time. I don't even know why they have a BCS selection show.

Here are all of the teams who have played in BCS bowls and their records.

Wisconsin 2-0
Ohio State 4-3 (1 National Championship)
Michigan 1-3
Purdue 0-1
Illinois 0-2
Iowa 0-1
Penn State 1-1

Georgia 2-1
Florida 4-1 (2 National Championships)
Tennessee 1-1 (1 National Championship)
Alabama 0-2
LSU 4-0 (2 National Championships)
Auburn 1-0

UCLA 0-1
Stanford 0-1
Washington State 1-0
USC 6-1 (1 National Championship)
Washington 1-0
Oregon 1-0

Texas A&M 0-1
Nebraska 1-1
Oklahoma 2-5 (1 National Championship)
Colorado 0-1
Kansas State 0-1
Texas 3-0 (1 National Championship)
Kansas 1-0

Syracuse 0-1
Pittsburgh 0-1
West Virginia 2-0
Louisville 1-0
Cincinnati 0-1

Florida State 1-5 (1 National Championship)
Virginia Tech 1-3
Miami 3-1 (1 National Championship)
Wake Forest 0-1
Maryland 0-1
Georgia Tech 0-0 (2010 is first BCS appearance)

Notre Dame 0-3
Utah 2-0
Boise State 1-0
Hawaii 0-1
TCU (2010 is first BCS appearance)

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: And it's hilarious that you list all of the FCS national champions from the last few decades, and claim how repititious they are. Why don't you list the national champions from the BCS era, and see what you find. Go ahead, amuse me this this insane amount of parity you claim the BCS creates. Better yet, why don't you list the teams who have made more than 1 BCS game in that era. I'd be willing to bet that you would find that the same 8-10 teams are the ones we watch play in the BCS year after year after year. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, USC, Miami, and recently Georgia Tech and Alabama. And they're playing one of those same teams time after time after time. I don't even know why they have a BCS selection show.

Here are all of the teams who have played in BCS bowls and their records.

Wisconsin 2-0
Ohio State 4-3 (1 National Championship)
Michigan 1-3
Purdue 0-1
Illinois 0-2
Iowa 0-1
Penn State 1-1

Georgia 2-1
Florida 4-1 (2 National Championships)
Tennessee 1-1 (1 National Championship)
Alabama 0-2
LSU 4-0 (2 National Championships)
Auburn 1-0

UCLA 0-1
Stanford 0-1
Washington State 1-0
USC 6-1 (1 National Championship)
Washington 1-0
Oregon 1-0

Texas A&M 0-1
Nebraska 1-1
Oklahoma 2-5 (1 National Championship)
Colorado 0-1
Kansas State 0-1
Texas 3-0 (1 National Championship)
Kansas 1-0

Syracuse 0-1
Pittsburgh 0-1
West Virginia 2-0
Louisville 1-0
Cincinnati 0-1

Florida State 1-5 (1 National Championship)
Virginia Tech 1-3
Miami 3-1 (1 National Championship)
Wake Forest 0-1
Maryland 0-1
Georgia Tech 0-0 (2010 is first BCS appearance)

Notre Dame 0-3
Utah 2-0
Boise State 1-0
Hawaii 0-1
TCU (2010 is first BCS appearance)

And when you take out all the teams who have made the BCS once, you have a whopping 20 teams, two of which are midmajors (Utah, 2-0 and Boise State, 1-0 and making appearance number 2 this year).

If you go by teams that have made it 3 or more times, we're down to 12. Again, as I said, the teams we watch play year after year in the BCS are those teams. And guess who they are? Notre Dame, Miami, Va Tech, Florida State, Texas, OU, USC, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Ohio State and Michigan. Now you check the top 15 at the beginning of the season next year, and I bet you'll find 9 teams securely in the preseason top 15. Michigan, Notre Dame, and Florida State likely will not be, but you never know what happens between now and then. Michigan might make it as like 14 or 15 just because of reputation combined with the fact that next year is supposed to be "the year" for Rodriguez to bring Michigan back to prominence.

So I ask you, how is this parity? All those teams have to do is NOT lose, and they're in the NC game (Ala Texas and Bama this season). It doesn't matter what any other teams does; if any of those teams go undefeated, they'll be in. That's not "giving any team in college football a chance to win the title" as many experts like to claim, that's letting the same teams start out at the top and SUSTAIN. Meanwhile, Boise and TCU are expected to play tough competition every week to "earn respect". To me, what did Texas do this year to "earn respect"? I don't care that they're Texas, and they have a tradition of being good; I care about THIS YEAR. Michigan has a tradition of success too, and you can clearly see that just because you have that tradition, does not automatically qualify you to be a National Title contender every year.

And all that ^^^ speculation above, is completely unnecessary. Yet that's what we're subjected to every single season; splitting hairs because our system is built on money, rather than football and won't change. All you have to do is let them play and no one will have to ask "who is better between the undefeated teams?" You would find out at the end of the year. As it is now, we know who will be better between Texas and Alabama, but how does that translate in relation to TCU, Boise or Cincy? You'll never know. And I guess people are cool with just being content with that.

dazedconfused wrote:

Yama Hama wrote: Man if you would have read the first like 2 pages you would know that an 8 team playoff would have excluded one of the following this year: Florida, TCU, Boise State. Controversy? Welcome back to the equation! Florida is undefeated and number 1 all year and get excluded from a playoff? Yeah nobody would be screaming for change then!

then they shouldn't have lost. besides if you are going to do an eight team playoff, just use the top 8 in the bcs rankings. no need to have automatic bids for the six conference champs with a pool that small

due the conference champ bid thing if the playoff is 16

The Florida fans complaining argument has already been beaten death, I wouldn't even bother trying to come up with a response anymore. To any rational (key word rational.... as in not contractually obligated by the BCS to support the bowl system, as Yama Hama appears to be) college football fan, it would appear to be better to just have Florida fans complaining about their one loss team that didn't take care of business on the field being excluded from national championship contention as compared to fans of undefeated teams complaining about being excluded from national championship contention.

Saying we shouldn't have a playoff because we're arguing over how many teams should participate would be like canceling your wedding because your fiance and you couldn't decide how many guests to invite.

Also, Yama Hama, you've stated you like the BCS because it creates parity, and don't like the playoffs because in the lower divisions the same teams keep playing for the title. So, let me get what you're saying: instead of wanting the two best teams to play in the title, you want to arbitrarily jumble the teams up and randomly pick out two good, but not quite the best teams, because it's nice to not have teams repeat in the championship game?

Because, that's what your arguments are hinting at and that's just mind-numbingly illogical at least, and slightly sadistic at worst.

Sykotyk

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
And when you take out all the teams who have made the BCS once, you have a whopping 20 teams, two of which are midmajors (Utah, 2-0 and Boise State, 1-0 and making appearance number 2 this year).

If you go by teams that have made it 3 or more times, we're down to 12. Again, as I said, the teams we watch play year after year in the BCS are those teams. And guess who they are? Notre Dame, Miami, Va Tech, Florida State, Texas, OU, USC, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Ohio State and Michigan. Now you check the top 15 at the beginning of the season next year, and I bet you'll find 9 teams securely in the preseason top 15. Michigan, Notre Dame, and Florida State likely will not be, but you never know what happens between now and then. Michigan might make it as like 14 or 15 just because of reputation combined with the fact that next year is supposed to be "the year" for Rodriguez to bring Michigan back to prominence.

So I ask you, how is this parity? All those teams have to do is NOT lose, and they're in the NC game (Ala Texas and Bama this season). It doesn't matter what any other teams does; if any of those teams go undefeated, they'll be in. That's not "giving any team in college football a chance to win the title" as many experts like to claim, that's letting the same teams start out at the top and SUSTAIN. Meanwhile, Boise and TCU are expected to play tough competition every week to "earn respect". To me, what did Texas do this year to "earn respect"? I don't care that they're Texas, and they have a tradition of being good; I care about THIS YEAR. Michigan has a tradition of success too, and you can clearly see that just because you have that tradition, does not automatically qualify you to be a National Title contender every year.

And all that ^^^ speculation above, is completely unnecessary. Yet that's what we're subjected to every single season; splitting hairs because our system is built on money, rather than football and won't change. All you have to do is let them play and no one will have to ask "who is better between the undefeated teams?" You would find out at the end of the year. As it is now, we know who will be better between Texas and Alabama, but how does that translate in relation to TCU, Boise or Cincy? You'll never know. And I guess people are cool with just being content with that.

Well, ya the idea is not to lose, isn't it? ALL you have to do is not lose? lol Yeah welcome to sports! Wouldn't that be the objective in a playoff too? To not lose?

Yama Hama wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
And when you take out all the teams who have made the BCS once, you have a whopping 20 teams, two of which are midmajors (Utah, 2-0 and Boise State, 1-0 and making appearance number 2 this year).

If you go by teams that have made it 3 or more times, we're down to 12. Again, as I said, the teams we watch play year after year in the BCS are those teams. And guess who they are? Notre Dame, Miami, Va Tech, Florida State, Texas, OU, USC, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Ohio State and Michigan. Now you check the top 15 at the beginning of the season next year, and I bet you'll find 9 teams securely in the preseason top 15. Michigan, Notre Dame, and Florida State likely will not be, but you never know what happens between now and then. Michigan might make it as like 14 or 15 just because of reputation combined with the fact that next year is supposed to be "the year" for Rodriguez to bring Michigan back to prominence.

So I ask you, how is this parity? All those teams have to do is NOT lose, and they're in the NC game (Ala Texas and Bama this season). It doesn't matter what any other teams does; if any of those teams go undefeated, they'll be in. That's not "giving any team in college football a chance to win the title" as many experts like to claim, that's letting the same teams start out at the top and SUSTAIN. Meanwhile, Boise and TCU are expected to play tough competition every week to "earn respect". To me, what did Texas do this year to "earn respect"? I don't care that they're Texas, and they have a tradition of being good; I care about THIS YEAR. Michigan has a tradition of success too, and you can clearly see that just because you have that tradition, does not automatically qualify you to be a National Title contender every year.

And all that ^^^ speculation above, is completely unnecessary. Yet that's what we're subjected to every single season; splitting hairs because our system is built on money, rather than football and won't change. All you have to do is let them play and no one will have to ask "who is better between the undefeated teams?" You would find out at the end of the year. As it is now, we know who will be better between Texas and Alabama, but how does that translate in relation to TCU, Boise or Cincy? You'll never know. And I guess people are cool with just being content with that.

Well, ya the idea is not to lose, isn't it? ALL you have to do is not lose? lol Yeah welcome to sports! Wouldn't that be the objective in a playoff too? To not lose?

Correct. Exept teams that start out ranked in the top 10, can schedule all 1-AA teams if they want to, and not have to worry about moving anywhere. If a team like TCU wants to go to the NC, according to you guys, they can't lose, and not only that they need to go out and play 3 top 10 teams OOC apparently.

If I'm Texas, who annually starts out in the top 10, why on earth in the BCS system would I every schedule a tough OOC game? But if I'm TCU, according to you, I need to schedule teams like Texas, Oklahoma, and USC every year, and beat all 3 teams to even be CONSIDERED. Tell me how that works. Explain to me how that creates the parity you were so proudly talking about earlier? Because I've looked at it and looked at it, and all I see it doing is creating separation.

Sykotyk wrote: Saying we shouldn't have a playoff because we're arguing over how many teams should participate would be like canceling your wedding because your fiance and you couldn't decide how many guests to invite.

Also, Yama Hama, you've stated you like the BCS because it creates parity, and don't like the playoffs because in the lower divisions the same teams keep playing for the title. So, let me get what you're saying: instead of wanting the two best teams to play in the title, you want to arbitrarily jumble the teams up and randomly pick out two good, but not quite the best teams, because it's nice to not have teams repeat in the championship game?

Because, that's what your arguments are hinting at and that's just mind-numbingly illogical at least, and slightly sadistic at worst.

Sykotyk

Its more like people screaming for you to hold a "The Bachelor" type contest instead of marrying your fiance "so that we can match up the best couple and they can compete with eachother for it instead of not giving all of those other women a chance."

Seriously can any of you debate with saying words like "idiotic" "moronic" and "illogical". Because you don't understand or agree with something does not make it "illogical". I have my reasons as to why I don't want a playoff, and it has nothing to do with having any sort of connection to the BCS (despite the fact that you guys keep endlessly saying this, like it holds any relevance or offends me or something). College football is hands down the best sport. I do not think that adding a playoff would be a "sweet" addition without having some unseen ramifications. Do you people really honestly feel that it wouldn't take anything away from a regular season? If you feel that way, then you and I must be watching completely different sports. And if you really want to trade 14 weeks of excitement + 34 possibly exciting bowls (2 shitty teams played an awesome "meaningless" game tonight and I loved it, Wyoming seemed like they felt it meant something) for 4 weeks of possible excitement (if you want to call Alabama vs. Troy exciting) then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't be adverse to a 4 team playoff specifically for situations like this year, but it'll never happen. I really don't see why you guys get so fired up, it will seriously never happen. I came to that conclusion a long time ago.

Attempting to take a lot of money away from rich people who have in turn given a lot of money back to these conferences and institutions is like trying to convince ncf, sleeper, and ccrunner that ND is still relevant: it'll never happen, its impossible. Football has been funding other sports that are net money losers and give college kids the opportunity to win championships in sports like soccer, lacrosse, golf, and gymnastics.

Where do you make up this influx of cash? How? Is Tostitos really going to want to sponsor the "Tostitos National Quarterfinal" featuring Alabama vs. Troy? No one would watch, except Alabama and Troy fans. In fact, when the shitty teams are in the BCS, the ratings are lower. That means less money, but guess what else it means? NO ONE IS WATCHING BECAUSE NOBODY CARES.

Lets take a look at the ratings shall we?

Championship Game Florida-Oklahoma 15.80
Fiesta Texas-Ohio State 10.40
Orange Va. Tech-Cincinnati 5.40
Rose USC-Penn State 11.70
Sugar Utah-Alabama 7.80

Championship Game LSU-Ohio St. 17.40
Rose USC-Illinois 11.11
Fiesta W. Virginia-Oklahoma 7.70
Orange Kansas-Va. Tech 7.40
Sugar Georgia-Hawaii 7.00

Championship Game Florida-Ohio St. 17.40
Rose Southern Cal-Michigan 13.94
Fiesta Boise St.-Oklahoma 8.40
Orange Louisville-Wake Forest 6.98
Sugar Notre Dame-LSU 9.29

Rose Southern Cal-Texas 21.7
Fiesta Ohio State-Notre Dame 12.9
Orange Penn State-Florida State 12.3
Sugar Georgia-West Virginia 9.0

Orange Southern Cal-Oklahoma 13.7
Sugar Auburn-Virginia Tech 9.5
Fiesta Utah-Pittsburgh 7.4
Rose Michigan-Texas 12.4

Notice a trend here? Notice how when a non-traditional-power plays in the game the ratings drop 3-5 points from the other bowls? Now this is not my proof that we should keep the BCS. This is my proof that nobody gives a shit if TCU or Boise State or Cincinnati play for shit. You defend them all day but the powers that be are looking at these numbers and saying "they are screaming for us to give these small teams a chance, but when we do, nobody cares." Guess which BCS bowl will be the lowest rated this year? TCU vs Boise, thats right. Because nobody ACTUALLY cares. If there was a playoff and Boise State made it to the championship game, that would suck. I wouldn't care, unless maybe they were playing ND or OSU. The ratings would suck. People would lose interest. This is what I mean when college football would become lame. Call me crazy if I'd rather see some good football and some teams that I love or hate rather than some team that was in I-AA 2 years ago. I could care less if YOU think its fair. I don't care if its fair, because no sport is.

In baseball the 5 best teams in the league could be in the same division and only TWO of them would make the playoffs, MAX. Same story in the NFL. In NCAA basketball you could lose every game and win your conference tournament and make the tournament. NO SPORT IS FAIR. COLLEGE FOOTBALL ISN'T EITHER. But its exciting, unlike other sports, or at least WAY MORESO than other sports.

So yes, you guys can say all you want that "people would love it" if there was a playoff, but the numbers show otherwise. Alabama and Troy would get terrible ratings, no one would watch. Ditto TCU or Utah vs. anybody. You keep acting like you love the underdog but the numbers don't lie. People want to see Texas, Florida, Ohio State, USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Nebraska, LSU, Georgia, Oklahoma. (You want proof? The 2008 Capital One Bowl had a 9.13 rating. It was Michigan vs. Florida. THREE BCS bowls rated below 8. There were 3 shitty teams bringing down the ratings) So tell me why, if thats what people want to see, you want to reward TCU and Utah and Boise State for playing in a Flag Football League and putting them on the big stage where nobody will want to see them whether they "deserve it" (they don't, try playing in a real conference) or not.

^^^^^WOW^^^^^

It comes down to one question guys: Would you rather it be fair, or exciting?

I'll take exciting any day.

What is "fair" anyways? Not fair for Boise State that they're not in the BCS NC Game? I say its not fair for Texas that they have to play a loaded Big XII schedule (come on, even in a down year its far and away better than the WAC or Mountain West) while Boise State and TCU get to play 8 to 10 terrible teams.

Mooney44Cards wrote: ^^^^^WOW^^^^^

It comes down to one question guys: Would you rather it be fair, or exciting?

I'll take exciting any day.

What is "fair" anyways? Not fair for Boise State that they're not in the BCS NC Game? I say its not fair for Texas that they have to play a loaded Big XII schedule (come on, even in a down year its far and away better than the WAC or Mountain West) while Boise State and TCU get to play 8 to 10 terrible teams.

what about this season was exciting, again?

Sykotyk wrote: Saying we shouldn't have a playoff because we're arguing over how many teams should participate would be like canceling your wedding because your fiance and you couldn't decide how many guests to invite.

Also, Yama Hama, you've stated you like the BCS because it creates parity, and don't like the playoffs because in the lower divisions the same teams keep playing for the title. So, let me get what you're saying: instead of wanting the two best teams to play in the title, you want to arbitrarily jumble the teams up and randomly pick out two good, but not quite the best teams, because it's nice to not have teams repeat in the championship game?

Because, that's what your arguments are hinting at and that's just mind-numbingly illogical at least, and slightly sadistic at worst.

Sykotyk

Maybe the best post in the entire thread

dazedconfused wrote: what about this season was exciting, again?

For starters, on the last Saturday of the season (save Army-Navy), you had two undefeated teams playing for one spot in the National Championship (Florida-Alabama). Just before that game, there was undefeated Cincinnati still with a shot at the National Championship pulling out all the stops for a comeback win. Then that night there was #2 Texas nearly losing its spot in the National Championship. You think TCU and Cincinnati fans were on the edges of their seats for that game?

If there was a playoff, all of those teams would have likely been in the playoff already and those games would have meant very little. I know, you're going to say it didn't mean anything to Cincinnati since they still got left out, but if you don't think it means something for Cincy to be playing in its second straight BCS bowl and getting a shot at Florida, you are the one missing something.

dazedconfused wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote: ^^^^^WOW^^^^^

It comes down to one question guys: Would you rather it be fair, or exciting?

I'll take exciting any day.

What is "fair" anyways? Not fair for Boise State that they're not in the BCS NC Game? I say its not fair for Texas that they have to play a loaded Big XII schedule (come on, even in a down year its far and away better than the WAC or Mountain West) while Boise State and TCU get to play 8 to 10 terrible teams.

what about this season was exciting, again?

EXACTLY! Now imagine how much MORE it would have sucked if there were 8 or 16 teams making the playoffs. Seriously....what would have been the reason to watch any games this year? OSU vs. Iowa wouldn't have mattered, they would both be in a 16 team playoff. Same with Alabama Florida, Oregon Oregon State, Texas Nebraska. None of it would have mattered, at least no where near as much as it mattered this year. All those close calls Alabama had were pretty exciting. ND-USC was very fun to watch. Same with OSU-USC. Hell even OSU-Navy was exciting.

Yama Hama wrote: EXACTLY! Now imagine how much MORE it would have sucked if there were 8 or 16 teams making the playoffs. Seriously....what would have been the reason to watch any games this year? OSU vs. Iowa wouldn't have mattered, they would both be in a 16 team playoff. Same with Alabama Florida, Oregon Oregon State, Texas Nebraska. None of it would have mattered, at least no where near as much as it mattered this year. All those close calls Alabama had were pretty exciting. ND-USC was very fun to watch. Same with OSU-USC. Hell even OSU-Navy was exciting.

dude, all of those games would have mattered. that osu/iowa game would have determined which team got to host ga tech and which team had travel to eugene - kind of a big difference.

you say florida/alabama would have been meaningless? i don't think alabama would have considered it meaningless to have three home games en route to the championship game nor would florida have considered it meaningless to face penn state, tcu/lsu then having to travel to tuscaloosa en route to their championship - kind of a big difference

oregon/oregon state wouldn't have mattered...well, except for the fact that it would have determined the pac 10 championship and possibly taken a bid away from another at-large team had oregon state had won. same goes for texas/nebraska. nebraska wasn't getting into a playoff without a win. that game could have also potentially determined which team out of tcu or cincy got the second seed and the right to host three games en route to their respective marches to the national championhip game

lsu, virginia tech, iowa and penn state would have been sweating it out that whole weekend to make sure their at-large bids didn't get gobbled up by nebraska, oregon state, clemson and pittsburgh

dazedconfused wrote:
dude, all of those games would have mattered. that osu/iowa game would have determined which team got to host ga tech and which team had travel to eugene - kind of a big difference.

you say florida/alabama would have been meaningless? i don't think alabama would have considered it meaningless to have three home games en route to the championship game nor would florida have considered it meaningless to face penn state, tcu/lsu then having to travel to tuscaloosa en route to their championship - kind of a big difference

oregon/oregon state wouldn't have mattered...well, except for the fact that it would have determined the pac 10 championship and possibly taken a bid away from another at-large team had oregon state had won. same goes for texas/nebraska. nebraska wasn't getting into a playoff without a win. that game could have also potentially determined which team out of tcu or cincy got the second seed and the right to host three games en route to their respective marches to the national championhip game

lsu, virginia tech, iowa and penn state would have been sweating it out that whole weekend to make sure their at-large bids didn't get gobbled up by nebraska, oregon state, clemson and pittsburgh

Ok, so they still would have "mattered" in terms of getting people into the playoffs but they would have mattered LESS. You just said the regular season was garbage and then come back with "Imagine what it would have been like if Alabama and Florida were playing for HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE instead of a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP APPEARANCE!!! Whoopeee that would've made the lame regular season wayyyy better!", but the national championship hung in the balance of the SEC Championship, the Big XII championship, and the UC-Pitt game.

I see no argument in "the regular season was lame" then turning around and wanting to make it worse.

And I would like this question answered, if "everybody" wants to see a playoff, how do you explain "nobody" watching games that involve shitty teams?

The ratings for the Rose Bowl will be 5 times what Ohio State-Georgia Tech Rd.1 would be. Yet your playoff game has more "meaning". And god forbid Ohio State lost that game and Georgia Tech moved on(OSU did have trouble with Navy's option). God, there goes the entire state of Ohio not watching the rest of the playoffs.

Yama Hama wrote: Ok, so they still would have "mattered" in terms of getting people into the playoffs but they would have mattered LESS. You just said the regular season was garbage and then come back with "Imagine what it would have been like if Alabama and Florida were playing for HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE instead of a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP APPEARANCE!!! Whoopeee that would've made the lame regular season wayyyy better!", but the national championship hung in the balance of the SEC Championship, the Big XII championship, and the UC-Pitt game.

I see no argument in "the regular season was lame" then turning around and wanting to make it worse.

i'll give you that championship weekend was a good weekend of college football, but it should be - it's the best of the best in those respective conferences. with the bowls, you turn a lame regular season and follow it up with an even lamer postseason

Yama Hama wrote: And I would like this question answered, if "everybody" wants to see a playoff, how do you explain "nobody" watching games that involve shitty teams?

The ratings for the Rose Bowl will be 5 times what Ohio State-Georgia Tech Rd.1 would be. Yet your playoff game has more "meaning". And god forbid Ohio State lost that game and Georgia Tech moved on(OSU did have trouble with Navy's option). God, there goes the entire state of Ohio not watching the rest of the playoffs.

how do you know that? we've never had meaningful postseason games before. i've never given two shits about any of these bowl games and would only watch the games (even the ones with the big name teams) if there was nothing else on. i know damn well i didn't watch that louisville/wake forest game but i definitely would watch if those two teams met in a playoff...hell i'd watch all 15 games regardless of when oregon gets eliminated. why? because the champion would be determined on the field and what fan of the sport wouldn't want that?

enigmaax wrote:

dazedconfused wrote: what about this season was exciting, again?

For starters, on the last Saturday of the season (save Army-Navy), you had two undefeated teams playing for one spot in the National Championship (Florida-Alabama). Just before that game, there was undefeated Cincinnati still with a shot at the National Championship pulling out all the stops for a comeback win. Then that night there was #2 Texas nearly losing its spot in the National Championship. You think TCU and Cincinnati fans were on the edges of their seats for that game?

If there was a playoff, all of those teams would have likely been in the playoff already and those games would have meant very little. I know, you're going to say it didn't mean anything to Cincinnati since they still got left out, but if you don't think it means something for Cincy to be playing in its second straight BCS bowl and getting a shot at Florida, you are the one missing something.

Yeah, it meant so much to Cincy that their head coach is recruiting for Notre Dame instead of preparing the Bearcats for their bowl game . . .

I'll agree that there were exciting moments this season, but college football of all sports is the one most in need of a playoff. Using the NFL and college basketball as comparisons, in both those sports teams play a wide range of opponents (divisional opponents twice, in some cases), and cross regional boundaries multiple times in a regular season. There are more chances to sort out who's better.

FBS teams play one, maybe two, meaningful OOC games, then retreat to their conferences and beat each other up, leaving multiple teams coming from different paths with nothing but computers, strength of schedules, preconceived notions, traditions, and discriminatory preseason polls to decide who "might be" the best two teams.

An eight-team playoff, while not perfect, is light-years a better way to determine a champion without resorting to full-blown playoffs like the NFL and college basketball (where 30% and 18% of teams make the playoffs) and watering down the regular season.