ATTN: College footbal fans, time for everyones favorite question!

[Blue_Chill]

Playoff or this retarded bcs ranking bowl nonsense?

You know where I stand how about you?

[VermontDem2004]

1. BCS Bowl Ranking system

I know I am in the minority because according to an opinion poll, 59% favored a playoff season. But one thing about College Football that I love is, the regular season is the playoffs, you loose two games you shouldn't be in the NC. Now the Ranking system needs to be improved, it is very possible to where a SEC or Big 12 team goes to the NC without even being in the Big 12 or SEC conference championship. With a playoff system, a 4 loss team could win the NC, I like the fact in College Football you have to loose no games or keep your looses to a minimum to be in the NC, that is the reason why I like College Football better then the pros, it makes teams compete, rather then give a have ass attempt knowing they will still be in the playoffs.

[Blue_Chill]

2. Problem with that is

You can't be sure the best team wins. Only teams with certain schedules can even have a chance of reaching the big game. In a true playoff system you know the best team wins because everybody gets a shot.

[VermontDem2004]

5. It is a clear indicator

if you can go 12,13, or 14 games undefeated you are good enough, Miami and Ohio State played tough teams last year and both (very deserving) went to the NC. A team who looses 2 or 3 games happens to go undefeated in the playoffs, why are they the best team? They lost 3 games. If you can manage to keep your loses to none you deserve to be in the NC. But if they change it, all of the competitive spirit will be gone in the regular season which is what I love about college football. imo, the regular season is the playoffs. The top 5 teams, Oklahoma plays Texas, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Nebraska(i think), and they have to play in the Big 12 championship if they win the most games in the Big 12 South, Miami has to play Florida, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Tennesse, and Pittsburgh. Ohio State has to play NC State, Michigan, Iowa, and other tough teams in the Big 10, USC has to play Oregon State, Washington state, Arizona State, played Auburn. Texas has to play Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas State(I believe), Nebraska, the Big 12 Championship if they make it, etc. So I don't really think having a tough schedule will be a problem, I seriously doubt a team will make it to the NC with a weak ass schedule because they way the BCS ranking system works is they put in schedule strength into consideration. The only argument that has a problem is yours.

[SEAburb]

3. playoff, Playoff, PLAYOFF!!!

The BCS with it's Eastern bias is bullshit. Pac-10 teams take it in the ass every year.

WSU rocks, Go Cougs !!

[VermontDem2004]

6. How?

If USC goes undefeated without a doubt they will be in the NC this year, Washington State lost 3 games last year, you really think they should of been in the NC when there were two teams with no loses? USC lost two games last year and you think they should of been there when there were two no lose teams?

[DoctorBombay]

11. Another Pac-10 guy against the playoff

UCLA is my team, but I watch all games with a level head as to make money!

VermontDem, we are on the same page once again! :toast:

[ironflange]

12. Yeah Cougs!

Too bad about last week, but they sure stuck it to Colorado today.

[sasquatch]

13. Playoff, yes please

I hate the fact that we can still argue over who should be the national champion.

[ShaneGR]

4. Hehe, worked fine last year

14-0

[sasquatch]

15. But, the BCS got lucky

that's why it worked last yeat. I'm glad it worked for the Buckeye's but, the NCAA needs to takeover and set up a playoff system.

[DoctorBombay]

17. We haven't had an undeserving champ since 1998

Since '98, the only undefeated team left in the country has won it every year.

Just win. Win all your games, and you'll get your shot. Lose once, and you put yourself in the hands of the polls and computers.

Everyone has their destiny in their own hands. It's what you do with it.

[VermontDem2004]

18. I find myself agreeing with you once again

we never had a playoff system in the century college football has been around, there is no point in adding that. It takes away the competitive spirit in regular season games, I agree, win all your games and you will get a shot.

[sasquatch]

22. What about

FSU playing in the BCS Championship instead of Miami whom would have givin' Oklahoma a run for it's money in 2001. What about Ohio State not going and a marginal FSU going instead and getting clobbered by the Vols. 2003 was the only non-contreversial championship.

[DoctorBombay]

26. Ok, on both points...

1998. Remember, there were FIVE teams that had one loss vying for that spot to play Tennessee. They were:

Florida State, Kansas State, Ohio State, UCLA, Arizona.

Of those teams, Florida State had the most bowl teams on their schedule, 8 of 12. That's why they went. UCLA beat Arizona head to head, so Arizona is out. K-State played a horribly weak non-conference schedule. UCLA won a bunch of close games when margain of victory still counted. Ohio State. All they had to do was hold on to a 24-9 third quarter lead AT HOME against a 28-point underdog that didn't go to a bowl game. They didn't do it. Win that game, and you play Tennessee. Also, OSU played only four bowl teams out of 11 (W. Virginia, Missouri, Penn St, Michigan. They missed Purdue and Wisconsin). Out of the five, FSU had played the best schedule, so they went. Tennessee is still the deserving champ.

2000. Ok, Miami beat Florida State, who were both 10-1. BUT, Miami, lost to Washington, who was ALSO 10-1. Furthermore, Washington beat another 10-1 team, Oregon State. So, if anyone from this season has a gripe, it's the Huskies. (they lost to 9-2 Oregon on the road). But, UW also won a bunch of really tight games, and FSU had a bunch of blowouts, which probably tipped the scales. This is why the BCS got rid of margain of victory as a compontent! Again, Oklahoma wins, and there's no problem.

It's not a PERFECT system, but it's been improved on, and it's the best we've had so far.

edit: grammar

[sasquatch]

27. But, it still isn't as good as a playoff system

[DoctorBombay]

31. Why is that?

I see a reply, but no substance.

[sasquatch]

36. Here's why

Do you here us arguing that Tampa Bay isn't the NFL champion? NO and you want to know why? Because the NFL uses a playoff system. Does this happen in ay other sport? No because they use a playoff system. In a playoff system if Florida State went 12-0 and got knocked out in the first round by Michigan that's it, sorry FSU nice season and congrats on making the NCAA football tourny but, your season is over, now go go home. College football loses it's legitamcy because there isn't an elimination tounement to crown it's champion. We need a 16 team tounament to determine who is the National Champion. The NCAA needs to grow a pair and put it's foot down and tell the university presidents this is how it's going to be done.

[DoctorBombay]

45. If college football is illegitimate...

...why do you follow it? If the National Championship means nothing, why are you Ohio State fans so proud of winning it? Why does it matter? I'm sure you have a TON of OSU National Champs gear in your closet. Is it legitimate because your team won?

I'm not arguing about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. This is not an NFL thread. College football is NOT the NFL. Why must the two be the same? Someone answer that for me, please.

Again, you mention Florida State. You should really check yourself on this Seminole hatred.

[sasquatch]

50. Football is Football

No matter where it is played. I do like the fact OSU is national champions but, it saddens me because I would feel better if they won it in a tournament. I think USC v.s. OSU would be a great game to watch and Iowa v.s. OSU would've left OSU the unofficial champion of the Big Ten. Now I know USC handed Iowa it's ass in the Orange Bowl but, what if Iowa would've won. If Iowa won the 2003 Orange Bowl we would still be debating if OSU was the best team in the Big Ten. The playoff system like Overtime was, is WAY over due in Div. IA football.

[DoctorBombay]

53. Iowa blew a huge lead against Iowa State on their home field

They have no one to blame but themselves!!!! Also, had they finished unbeaten, they would have been shutout, because they played a crap non-league schedule (Iowa St and three MAC teams). But, the point is moot. They had a 24-3 lead on ISU (or something close) and couldn't hold it.

Who knows what would have happened if they played OSU? My bet is the home team would have won. But, you play who you play, in an 11 team league, you are going to miss two teams, and is has to rotate. Bad break.

[sasquatch]

62. Iowa State is a overlooked team though

They play in the Big 12 so they've got credintials. Plus they're Iowa biggest rival. Once Florida tied Florida State and they blew a lead that was over thirty points. Now did we consider them a weak team? NO, because they play in a consistant football confrence. Even High School teams determine their State Champs by using a playoff system and game attendence is bigger then ever at regular season home games and bigger yet at playoff games. Maybe college football outta think about moving into the 29th cetury for once in it's life.

[DoctorBombay]

65. I'm not doubting Iowa State

They were pretty good last year, at least in the first half of the season. Doesn't excuse Iowa blowing that game. If we excuse them, then we have to excuse anyone else who lost just one game.

Again, FSU comes up. yeah, I remember that game, Thanksgiving weekend, 1993. Florida blew a 31-3 lead in the fourth quarter.

and I don't give a damn about how high schools do things.... from what I understand, most states (I know Pennsylvania is an exception) lump public and private schools together in playoffs. So, schools that can get players from anywhere are competing in a playoff against teams with a limited player pool. THAT doesn't sound fair.

Again, same as the NFL argument, why does college football have to conform to other levels? Should the National League in baseball adopt the DH because it's used in the AL, the minors, and in college?

[sasquatch]

75. I like how Texas does it (for once)

They have a Division called TAPPS so the recruiting private schools don't get any advantages in their state playoff run. So private and public are in two different boats. Now in Ohio the Public Schools a majority of the time in Div. I(biggest possible division) have a state tittle edge over the private's, wierd huh?

[juliemoo]

69. I would like to see a playoff system only so that

everyone will stop questioning whether the national champ
really deserved to win.  I am so tired of hearing "That's
not fair...they lost to the #2 ranked team and we had an
undefeated season even though we didn't play any top-ranked
teams!"  Both of FSU's national championships were hotly
contested even though we were undefeated in the 1999 season. 
I still have to listen to crap from Notre Dame fans about how
they should have won in 1993.  I'm tired of listening to
people bitch about it, just have a playoff season and get it
over with.  I don't care if FSU wins or loses as long as I
don't have to listen to the post-season bullshit.

[DoctorBombay]

32. 1999- two unbeaten teams played

So 2002 was NOT the only non-controversial year.

This is like arguing with Bob Novak.

Facts, my friend, facts.

[sasquatch]

35. Lies

Florida State had a lost in 1999

[DoctorBombay]

37. No they didn't

http://clintzbcs.tripod.com/stats.html

Beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl.

Wrong again, Sasquatch!

[sasquatch]

40. No your wrong

Va Tech and FSU didn't play until 2000. Florida State and Tennessee played in 1999 not Florida State and Va Tech. Va Tech was a toothless tiger because they played in a basketball only confrence and weren't really challanged through out the year. So FSU got to play a toothless tiger to take it's first BCS championship game.

[DoctorBombay]

42. You are wrong yet again, Sasquatch!

you are confusing the year of the New Year's Day bowls with the year of the seasons!

The first season the BCS was in place was 1998. Tennessee and FSU played in the Fiesta Bowl in January of 1999.

Virginia Tech and Florida State both went unbeaten in the fall of 1999!!!!! They played in January, 2000. Look at the Virginia Tech link I posted!

Sheesh!

Edit: When I mention a year, it's the year of the season (that fall), not the calender year the bowl game is played in. Example:, Ohio State are the 2002 National Champs, not 2003.

[sasquatch]

44. No I'm not and just because you don't know how a calander works...

doesn't mean you get off the hook. God dammit you go by the year it was played in so there isn't any confusion, got it Doc.

[DoctorBombay]

47. Bullshit! Once again, you are wrong

You don't play an entire season in one calendar year, then one game in another, the get called the champs for the year you played one game.

My wife went to OSU. All her stuff from Tempe says "2002 National Champs"

My uncle lives in Nashville. The hat (I collect) he sent me says- Tennessee 1998 National Champs.

Same with the Michigan hat I have for 1997.

You are going to break a record for incorrect statements in one thread, Sasquatch.

[sasquatch]

52. So does my OSU stuff

The game counts for the 2002 season but, it is listed as being played in 2003. Try again

[DoctorBombay]

59. The game was in 2003

But the SEASON, which is what you win a title for, a SEASON, not a game, was in 2002.

here is proof positive, right from the NCAA:

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html


You try again.

[sasquatch]

64. When you talk about the damned championship game you say the year...

in which it was played not for what season it counted for. Example I'm a Bengals fan(don't laugh) and one of the few happy moments I have was when the Bengals played in the 1989 Super Bowl. Now when I talk about it I say "you remember the '89 Super Bowl" and because I live in Southwest Ohio people no what I'm talking about. If I were to say "you remember the '88 Super Bowl" they would think about Bears v.s. Patriots not Forty-Niners v.s. Bengals. Just take it easy on yourself and quit.

[DoctorBombay]

68. Again, different

I won't laugh, first off...I'm a Lions fan. They've never even been in a damned Super Bowl.

When referring to a Super Bowl champ, I say the Super Bowl number (or at least I used to, before I lost count)

When referring to a national champ in football, it is customary to use the season, not the year of their bowl game, if it was past New Year's Day, which it invariably is.


Look, I'm not trying to be a prick, but if a point is called into question, I'm going to back it up.

Remember, we're all on the same side here....which is why we are on this website in the first damned place.

[sasquatch]

71. OK we'll agree to disagree

fair enough?

[DoctorBombay]

77. I'm always ok with that

I realize I'm probably in the minority on this issue. But I am passionate about it because it's my favorite sport and it's that way because it is so unique.

I think these exercises are part of what makes it so fun!

[juliemoo]

72. Exactly who do you think you are

making up rules just to fit your needs? You sound just like GWB for goodness sake! A football season starts in September and ends in January of the following year (if you are good enough to make it to a bowl game). Everyone who knows football knows that! Even us "idiot women" who don't follow every sport to man know that!

[sasquatch]

78. I am Sasquatch

I live in the political and sports widerness of Southwest Ohio. I try to lead the "sheeple" out of their hell hole of lies. The local right wing hate spewing radio channel 700 WLW is bitching that OSU should have to forfet there championship because of the Maurice Clarret situation. The problem with Cincinnati is that it is filled with dejected Kentuckians that think the blue grass state should've joined the confederacy and hated people of color all of their lives. So they dedicate their short pathetic lives trying to destroy the North by any means possible bar none. When I talk about the game I use the date in which it was played, isnt that funny how that works.

[juliemoo]

96. Well I agree with you...

that the private lives of players should be left out of the team's successes (or failures). No one really seems to care about these so-called "scandals" until a national championship is at stake. Ohio has a great team and I am rooting for you all the way (unless it turns out FSU has a chance, of course, not likely as long as Rix is QB). God knows anything is better than frigging Miami. Good luck this season. As you said before, we will have to agree to disagree on the date issue.

[DoctorBombay]

38. And for good measure...

http://www.techsideline.com/football/1999/football99.htm

There are Virginia Tech's results, before you claim the Hokies had a loss going into the Sugar Bowl, too.

[VermontDem2004]

58. bzzt wrong

Here are the 1999-2000 final BCS rankings before the NC.

http://msn.espn.go.com/abcsports/bcs/rankings_full/index.html

As you can see both Florida State and Virginia Tech have no looses.

[Punkingal]

7. Playoffs....

without a doubt.

[VermontDem2004]

8. The regular season is the playoffs

you loose to many games in the regular season, you shouldn't be in the NC.

[CarlBallard]

9. Retarded BCS ranking bowl nonsense!

I actually don't need a national winner at all. Now instead of arguing who's the best based on looking at the games, we're looking at the method. That just isn't as much fun. Still given the choices I'll take the murky one (at least in college sports) every time. Also it's such a gruling game, can they tack on a few more games and expect 18, 19 year olds to just take it?

[DoctorBombay]

10. NO playoff

Playoff dilutes the regular season. The beauty of college football is that it is the last team sport in this country where the regular season still means something, or means the most by a large margain.

The regular season is a playoff in itself. Bottom line: Win all your games. Period. No one has been denied a shot at the national title since the BCS was formed for winning all their games. (I'm talking the big boys, not the Tulane's of the world). yeah, three big teams could go unbeaten. that hasn't happened since the mid-60s, and with parity more prevelant than ever, I don't see it happening again.

Why should a team that went undefeated have to play a one- or even a two loss team in some sort of elimination game?

Some people I know advocate a return of the old system, with the bowls taking traditional conference champions. If that were the case, Miami and Ohio State would never have played last year, and we would all have missed that wonderful game.

The drama of the week in week out struggle of the regular season cannot be messed with. College football has NEVER been this popular, with all these games on television now.

Some argue that the smaller schools are shutout of the BCS. I don't buy this either. In the 20 years prior, only ONE team, the 1991 Louisville Cardinals, played in one of the four major bowl games, the Fiesta, defeating Alabama 32-7. The only reason they were there in the first place is because some schools were boycotting that bowl game because at the time, Arizona was not recognizing Martin Luther King Day. California, 10-1 and whose only loss came to eventual (split) National Champion Washington, would have been in that game, but declined it.

The smaller D-1 schools have NEVER had it any better. they are on national tv constantly! Seems like there is a Conference USA game on ESPN every night of the week. There are 28 bowls, meaning 56 bids. 14 slots are reserved for non-BCS teams (5 to C-USA, 3 WAC, 3 or 4 to the MWC, 2 MAC, 1 Sun Belt) I find their complaining to be disingenuous. yeah, non-BCS schools beat the big boys a couple time every week. But to go to a major bowl and play a top ten team? Sorry, not buying it. Last year, the best non-BCS team was Boise State, 11-1 in the regular season. They played one major school, Arkansas, and got drilled, 44-14. What makes us think they could have gone to the Sugar Bowl and handled Georgia?

In short, the regular season drama is what makes college football so great. Why make it more like the NFL? I watch college football because it's NOT like the NFL.

[sasquatch]

14. College football is great because of Tradition

NFL is equaly as good but, college football is popular because of it's school spirit and tradition's. Americans also like to go back to puritan ways so they like college football is played for pride and not money.

[DoctorBombay]

16. that's another reason I love it

The unbridled enthusiasm of the kids!

[VermontDem2004]

19. I agree

with every point you made. I like College Football ten times more because of the competitive spirit of the regular season. I don't want to go to a point where teams give a half ass effort in a game knowing they are going to be in the playoffs anyway.

[DoctorBombay]

21. Precisely!

You have to be at, or near, your best EVERY WEEK!

[sasquatch]

24. The competitive spirit will still be there though.

This isn't an NFL playoff system if applied it would be impossible for a 7-5 team to make it to the playoffs. It couldn't be anymore than the top 28 that would play in it.

[SmileyBoy]

66. They could keep a dozen bowl games for the 8-4, 7-5 teams...

...and the bowl games would be similar to the NIT in basketball (kissing your sister), and implement a 16-team playoff system for the NC. All conference winners would join, including a wild card from each of the four regions.

[sasquatch]

80. Good Idea

Then the season would be real interesting. Hell who says NFL regular season doesn't mean anything. Hell pro football is America's number one spectater sport.

[SmileyBoy]

83. If you don't win a bunch of games in the NFL, you can't win the playoffs.

Right??

And I just think the same should hold true with 1-A college football. Like I said, it doesn't dilute the title of national champion. On the contrary, it might be a catalyst in better seperating the cream of the crop teams from the dead crumbs.

And even though my favourite college team is a 1-AA team (NDSU Bison), and the playoff issue doesn't affect me in terms of my loyalty and membership of my football team (I'm a student assistant for NDSU), because in 1-AA, there's a playoff system. But it's still an issue that I feel that should be discussed, and one I have an opinion of.

[SmileyBoy]

20. PLAYOFFS, GOD DAMMIT!!!!!!!!

If divisions 3, 2 and 1-AA can have a fucking 16-team playoff format, what makes 1-A think they don't have to have it??? I think that they could go to a 32-team format, and the NCAA would make BILLIONS. A 1-A college football Final Four would make more money than two Super Bowls, IMO.

[DoctorBombay]

23. Which is exactly why you see or hear NOTHING about it...

...until they start their playoffs!!! There's absolutely no need to pay attention! The regular season is just a warm up.

Now, I'm not knocking lower division football, I think it's great. But nobody outside the fans for the schools is paying any attention until the playoffs start.

[sasquatch]

25. Lies

Do you work for the LIEberman campaign? Nobody cares about Div 2,3 IAA because they get low quality recruits 90% of the time. Trust me it wouldn't be like an NFL playoff because it would be almost impossible for a 7-5 team to make it in the playoffs.

[DoctorBombay]

30. Lies?????

Do I work for Lieberman. Save that shit for GD. this is the F---ing lounge.

Yeah, the players aren't as good. But if the problem with college football is the system, why isn't I-AA more popular? Why aren't we all filling out brackets.

Why are college football ratings higher than ever??? Because every game counts, that's why.

[sasquatch]

33. Because the schools don't have the money power to get the TV ratings

Have you ever heard of a Div IAA game? no not really. A playoff system is the best possible results and ultimate acid test of teams. It's a good thing basketball doesn't use this system because they would have Duke as the national champs every year.

[DoctorBombay]

34. Basketball-football

is like comparing apples and anvils. In one sport, you play 12 games, the other you play 30. Is this aspect of it lost on you?

The playoff is the ultimate acid test? Ok, so an 8-4 team seeded 16th beats the 11-0, top seeded team, and all of a sudden they're better? NO. It's called an UPSET.

How many times have you heard an announcer say "in a one-game situation, anything can happen".

A three-month, 12-game regular season IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE a better barometer of who the better team is than one game. A short series is always better hope for an underdog. These are basic, fundamental rules of sports. The underdog would rather have a one-game shot rather than best-of-three, rather have best of three rather than best of five, and so forth. The best team will ALWAYS be determined in a longer format. ALWAYS.

Yeah, I have heard of 1-AA, thank you very much. I have a question for you. Can you tell me the difference between a 1-AA university and a Division II University? Thanks in advance.

[sasquatch]

39. No it isn't

It would be impossible for an 8-4 team to make it in the playoff system. If by some chance they did do all of that it would make a great feature length movie 20 years later. It's not fair for FSU playing Hodunk week after week so they're fresh for Miami and Florida(and that applies to all Florida schools). You're saying that fans are going to completly stop watching college football because of a playoff system would take away from the regular season. Bullshit you would still have that "have to win every game" mentality in it's players, coaches and fans. The reson the "have to win every game" mentality because if they lost they won't make it to the playoffs. In the 16 team format only the top one or two team in the top confrences would make it to the post season. The really good thing is if they don't make it there season is pretty much over because it if they still have bowls it will be like playing in the NIT or kissing your sister because it doesn't mean anything.

[DoctorBombay]

41. You're really stuck on this Florida State thing, aren't you?

Because you mention them in almost every post. Is it because FSU got to the 1998 Fiesta Bowl (by playing TWICE AS MANY bowl teams as Ohio State that year), or was it the thumping they game the Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl the year after that?

An 8-4 team COULD make a playoff, depending on how many teams are in it. Auburn finished about #14 in the poll, and they finished 9-4, with a win in their bowl game.

Record aside, my larger point remains unchallenged: The better team will ALWAYS show themselves over a longer period of time.

UNLV beat Wisconsin today. Thumped them good. If they played each other 12 times, six home, six away, how many do you think UNLV wins? Three, tops. But, today was one of those days.

Were the 1985 Villanova Wildcats, the #8 seed REALLY the best basketball team in the country? Had they played Georgetown in a seven game series, could they have won four games? Absolutely no way in hell. They needed to shoot something like 88% in the second half to win by TWO! But that's they way the NCAA basketball is set up. And it's great....for basketball!!! The two sports needn't be the same.


edit: grammar

[sasquatch]

43. They're would be a different system for the tournament

Besides would it be bad if an Auburn made it and made a good solid run at it? No it wouldn't be a bad thing if Auburn did that. That's Bullshit about the bowl teams what teams did they play in those bowls in that year and did they win. That year the fourth team in the Big Ten beat the fourth team in the nation so what do you think about that. The Big Ten is a tough football confrence and if Bobby Bowden had to play in it he would be no better than Penn State is now. The reason they thumped us in the Sugar Bowl was because we had a REAL young team that year. OSU team was so young they had no players picked in the draft that year. I know you've got yourself braiwashed into thinking this is the way it's always got to be but, it isn't. Hopefully one day the NCAA will grow a pair and put it's foot down to the presidents of the university and tell them this is how it's going to be. If the presidents don't like it then they tell them to go to hell and if they do conspire to have a seperate national champion the NCAA won't recognize them.

[SmileyBoy]

46. That's why the 1985 Villanova story was so exciting.

If you're an NCAA official, you mostly care about two things: Ratings and profit. Take this for example: The interest level that a 9-3 team from the Mountain West Conference running the table and defeating an undefeated SEC team extremely outsurpasses any public interest in two undefeateds from the SEC and Big Ten playing for the NC. Americans like to root for the underdog. The Cinderella team. The playoff format would give Americans that chance to some extent. That's what generates the ratings, the interest level, and ultimately, the profits from increased merchandise and ticket sales.

Think about this, also: How does one justify saying that an undefeated team at 12-0 WHO LOSES (Half-asses it) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS is a wholly, 100 percent better team than a 9-3 wild card team that runs the table to win the NC, beating two undefeateds in the process???

Maybe you should consider the fact that the 9-3 team might be the best in the nation BECAUSE they were able to do this.

This is why I'm against the BCS system. It uses pseudo-mathematics to determine a national champion picked from a litter of roughly half of the 128 teams in D-1A from pre-concieved categories. Never mind the fact that ONE HALF of those BCS classified teams basically have no chance in hell to get to the NC game ANYWAY, EVEN IF they go undefeated. To test this theory, I purposefully had a simulation on NCAA Football 2004 of the Minnesota Gophers having an undefeated season where they beat their opponents by an average of 15 points.

Guess what?? The simulation polls on the game had Minnesota ending up at NUMBER 5 and PLAYING IN THE ROSE BOWL, even though they went 12-0, beating Ohio State and Iowa, among others.

This is why the BCS is bullshit.

[DoctorBombay]

51. You're using a video game to argue your point?

I'm not even going to discuss that.

Last season, best non-BSC conference team: Boise State. Regular season record: 11-1. Games played against BCS Conference teams: 1. Record 0-1. Result 44-14 loss to Arkansas, who finished 9-5. What on earth thinks they could have conteneded with Georgia, a team that beat Arkansas 30-3?

[sasquatch]

54. So the BYU's of the college football should just stay home

I know you used Boise State as a reference but, what if BYU had a really good team and were told "you're not in the BCS so sorry, hey Bobbie congrats on going 11-1 on a crappy schedule". That isn't a fair system for them to play on. I would love to see the Mountain con., Big Sky con, Con. USA and independets get a wack at it. Hell I bet Miami of Ohio would be a good spoiler team if they wouldn't choke to Marshall every year.

[SmileyBoy]

56. Well, what about teams like Minnesota, Boston College or even Vanderbilt?

Let's say by some freak act of God that Vanderbilt (perennial loser and BCS member, because they're in the SEC) goes undefeated, 12-0. They've beat among others: Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, etc. etc. This is hypothetical, BTW. Do you ACTUALLY THINK that Vanderbilt would be calculated at a front-runner for the NC by the BCS??? I sure as hell don't think so. If you want to even have a CHANCE to play for the NC in 1-A football, you not only better be sure that you play in a powerful, BCS-qualified conference, but you better be damn-well sure that your team is not a perennial loser, too. A miraculous undefeated season by a ex-loser team means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the BCS folks. THEY'RE NOT GONNA CONSIDER YOU FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. This is why the BCS does not work. Because it favors perennial winners over perennial losers, regardless of the outcomes of games in the present. And remember that undefeated season Northwestern had six or seven years ago?? THEY PLAYED IN THE FUCKING ROSE BOWL, NOT THE NC.

[DoctorBombay]

60. If Vanderbilt went 12-0

They WOULD be in the running, because they would have run the table in the SEC. I assume you mean 13-0, since they would have to win the SEC title game, too.

The BCS is a system, not a bunch of people sitting a smoke filled room deciding who is and isn't going to play. The EXACT formula can be calculated, for chrissakes. It is not arbitrary.

Also, Northwestern was NOT undefeated in their Rose Bowl year (1995), they lost to Miami of Ohio. Furthermore, there WAS NO national championship game in 1995! The BCS was not in place, and the Big Ten and Pac-10 were not on board any system. They could go nowhere BUT the Rose Bowl.

Try again.


edit: so Sasquatch understands, Northwestern won the Big Ten in the fall of 1995, played in the Rose Bowl on January 1, 1996, losing to USC 41-32.

[SmileyBoy]

63. So, there was no NC game before 1995????

OK, whatever you say... :eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[DoctorBombay]

73. No, there was not a "national championship" game then.

There were only bowl games. Nebraska won the title that year. They played in the Orange Bowl because they were conference champs, and that's where the winner of their league went. and they played whoever the hell the Orange Bowl wanted to invite.

There were pseudo-title games beginning the following year, when Nebraska beat Florida. I say pseudo because the Big Ten and Pac-10 were not part of the deal. Then signed on when Michigan and Nebraska split the title in 1997. They couldn't play because Michigan was locked into the Rose Bowl, whereas Nebraksa had to play the next team in the pecking order.

The Big Ten, seeing one of their own having to split a title instead of playing for it, signed on and the Pac-10 followed. The BCS is what was created out of that,beginning in 1998.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

[DoctorBombay]

89. need to correct something I said...

Nebraska and Florida played at the end of the '95 season, not '96. '96 was Florida-FSU.

Northwestern was still locked into the Rose Bowl, and they weren't unbeaten anyway.

[VermontDem2004]

91. The BCS system didn't take place till

the 1998-1999 season. It was implemented after Michigan and Nebraska went undefeated during the 1997-1998 season and had to split the National Championship. Michigan played in the Rose Bowl and Nebraska played in another bowl.

[sasquatch]

70. What about Non-BCS teams that go undefeated

I give you a hypothetical question. Let's say Miami of Ohio beat Michigan and North Carolina in there NC games. I use Miami of Ohio because they're always a good spoiler team. They go undefeated through the season and win their confrence right out. Now when BCS time rolls around it's Oklahoma(11-1) v.s. USC(11-1) and Miami of Ohio told to go fuck themselves becuase they're not in a BCS confrence. Now in a playoff system they could get destroyed by a major confrence team with one loss but, I still think they should get a shot at it. Who knows they might make a cinderella championship season and that would make all the reason in the world to have a playoff system.

[DoctorBombay]

74. Would that same Miami team go unbeaten in the ACC or Big Ten

Probably not. That's the rub. They can do it once, or maybe even twice, but 12 times with a BCS conference schedule? No.

The 1998 Tulane team goes about 6-5 or even 5-6 with Tennessee's schedule from that year.

[sasquatch]

81. But they should still get a shot at it

You'll at least agree with me on that will you? It will keep college ball honest if the did pull it off because it would show that a small team could win it and money is not a factor what so ever.

[DoctorBombay]

86. If they played a monster non-league schedule, maybe

Like a Fresno State, that takes on the world every September.

But, if I was making book, hypotheically, that '98 Tulane team would have been a 17-21 pt underdog to the second or third SEC team from that year on a neutral field.

[VermontDem2004]

92. If the non BCS team plays good for 2 or 3 years

and have great talent, they will get a conference invite to a BCS conference replacing a worse team. If you a non BCS team goes undefeated this year, they will go high up on the rankings next year, and if they schedule tough go undefeated that year they could be in the NC. The way the BCS system works, they take in average poll rankings and schedule strength into determination when declaring the #1 and #2. Like Dr. said, they aren't a bunch of guys smoking cigars in a room choosing favorites.

[VermontDem2004]

90. I play that same video game

in most cases with going along with the simulation the only undefeated or the second undefeated team makes it to the NC. Unless you save, simulate, don't get the results you want, restart, simulate again, there is no way you will have 5 undefeated teams. Even though the BCS system in NCAA Football 2004 is accurate, I wouldn't use a video game to argue your point of view.

[VermontDem2004]

93. Florida State isn't playing hodunk after hodunk

They play Colorado, Miami, Notre Dame, Miami, Virginia, NC State which gave your buckeyes a scare yesturday, and Florida.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=52&year=2003

[DEM FAN]

28. The BCS Is BS.

:-(

[sasquatch]

29. You're correct it is BS

[SmileyBoy]

48. I'm with you, sasquatch.

I agree 100%.

[sasquatch]

57. Help me out here

Doctor Bombay and VermontDem are spreading there ignorane all over this thread. Help me verbally beat their asses.:spank:

[SmileyBoy]

61. Well, I don't think it's ignorance per se...

I just think that they've been misled by Lee Corso and all the other stubborn, purist troglodytes in the college football media. What they seem to not understand is the money issue, and that's why a playoff format will work, because it will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. MUCH MORE than all the bowl games combined. Also, I'm sick of seeing all these new, pansy Toilet Bowl games with 5-7 teams competing against each other. WHO GIVES A CRAP if a team won the Seattle Bowl?? Who the HELL would want to WATCH the GalleryFurniture.com Bowl????

[sasquatch]

67. To tell the Truth

I'm such a football fan that I would waste my whole day watching crapy bowl games. It wouldn't mean anything but, I would still do it for the hell of it.

[DoctorBombay]

76. Who gives a crap about who wins the Seattle Bowl?

The kids who played in it, that's who. And their friends and family. You want to begrudge them that?

[SmileyBoy]

79. But does it generate a lot of public interest????

NO.

Look, I'm not saying that the kids who play in the Seattle Bowl are crappy players, not at all. But a post-season game that generates that type of interest level is maybe good for division 3 or 2 or maybe even 1-AA once in a while, but DEFINITELY not acceptable for a division like 1-A, where you're seeing game attendances of 112,000 like today. Bowl games have become parodies of themselves. The proliferation of bowl games can also be attributed to the increased implementation of the BCS system over the past several years. Bowl games may be exciting in theory, but when 15 of them with an average attendance of 20,000 are being played in the period of 96 hours, it damages the credentials and tradition of bowl games in general. It dilutes the credibility of the bowl game concept. It becomes a free-for-all.

[DoctorBombay]

82. On the flip side...

these bowl games are giving teams that don't go to them as often a chance to play in one. they get a nice payout, the players have a good time, the alumni go and enjoy themselves, and this brings increased ticket sales and revenue for said schools. I don't really see a downside. Also, for some of these communities, like Shreveport, LA (Independence Bowl), the game is a source of pride and a very big deal to the local economy.

If the bowl draws no one and loses money, it will fold up. Ironically, you mentioned the one bowl from last year, Seattle, that did exactly that.

[SmileyBoy]

84. But a playoff format would give those schools a lot more money.

Regardless of whether they made the playoffs or not. A playoff system would be a huge fiscal boon for the NCAA, like I said.

[DoctorBombay]

87. less teams would compete in the playoff

So those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place C-USA teams would get less money. Sure, they'd get a playoff cut, but then they lose the bump in intrest and stuff from not going to the bowl game, plus the communities losing the game.

My reasoning for not wanting a playoff is not fiscal. It, from my first post way back when in this thread, stems from my love of the uniqueness of the regular season and how it means everything.

[DoctorBombay]

88. ignorance??

I just saw this nugget.

I am backing EVERYTHING up with data.

And Northwest thinks I've been brainwashed by Lee Corso....he who used a video game to make a point.

[sasquatch]

94. You are brainwashed by Lee Corso

The BCS is a new and improved version of the old version but, it still doesn't work.

[SmileyBoy]

49. I want to repeat once more that the BCS is BULLSHIT.

The NCAA is stupid for not already implementing a playoff, IMO. The NCAA would make literally billions of dollars over a few years, and having the profit split evenly among the schools (like the format in basketball) means that schools who might need upgrades in facilities or equipment would be able to pay for them. It's a win-win. It doesn't dilute the title of national champion in ANY WAY.

[sasquatch]

55. Amen to that

[sasquatch]

85. For crying out loud this thread is over 80 post

I'm going to bookmark this and pick it up in the morning OK.

[Ohio Dem]

95. I lean towards playoffs.

For many of the same reasons being argued by sasquatch and Northwest. I don't really think that the current system is awful, either. It's the best thing college football has ever had to determine a champ. But it's still a mythical champ.

I must say this, though: The pro-BCS people have made some good arguments. It's refreshing that they're not relying on the standard excuses not to have playoff. The reasons you give to support the BCS have merit. As opposed to:

1. That it would make the season too long. Bullshit. It wouldn't affect very many teams at all. Suppose eight teams made the playoffs. The first round would be equivalent to a bowl game. That leaves four teams that play any extra games at all. In a normal season, that would be 14 games. OSU played 14 games last year. Outlaw 13 regular season games, and it's not a problem. Two other teams play the extra game. I don't think it would hurt them. And as for it interfering with their schoolwork, just don't wait 4-6 weeks after the end of the season to start the process. Most of the games then fall in Winter Break.

2. It would hurt the integrity of the bowls. Bullshit. Only one bowl matters in the hunt for the MNC under the current system. The others are reward for the teams and a treat for the fans. Other than that, they are already insignificant. In fact, a playoff could be set up so the games are played in traditional bowls. This would actually increase their significance.

3. Loss of TV revenue. Bullshit. I don't think you can convince me that College Football Playoffs wouldn't be a cash cow. Look at the popularity of the NCAA Basketball Tournament.

4. It goes against tradition. Well, I suppose this one has a little merit. But they used to play without helmuts. Requiring helmuts went against tradition. And when they narrowed the goal posts. And having 30 or how ever many bowl games. And putting in scholarship limits. None of these changes hurts anything (some of them really helped), and I don't think a playoff will, either.

Bottom line, until there is a playoff, the National Champion will always be the Mythical National Champion. And I predict that the whole BCS thing will explode soon when there are 3 or 4 undefeated, "deserving" teams.