regarding who is really # 1 in college football

[Bertha Venation]

this just occurred to me:

Why can't there be a "what if" game?

This year the championship was split between USC and LSU. Why not have a contingency game? Each year, plan for an "IF" game. If the championship is split, play one more game, the week after the big bowl-game week. Pit both "champions" against each other to name one champion.

???

[Superfly]

1. You're all wrong...the WSU Cougars are *rightfully* #1

at least I think so.

[Bertha Venation]

2. Good answer.

Made me laugh, anyway. ;)

[Superfly]

4. Well, they have the best college logo, anyways...

and that counts for something, right?

[Bertha Venation]

5. is that the one w/ the cat's head made out of the initials "WC?"

I always think "Water Closet," but . . . :shrug:

hehehee

[Superfly]

6. Take that back...

It's a W, S & U

Like this:

[Bertha Venation]

8. Water Smelly Closet?

Kidding! Kidding! I take it back. Next to 'SC, the Cougars are my favorite PAC-10 team. Seriously. (My least fave: Westwood High.)

[joeybee12]

18. Hah! One of the few teams my below average Fighting Irish beat!

How the heck did WSU get ranked so high? I mean, they weren't ranked when they lost to ND--who did they upset during the season?

[Radical__Moderate]

3. It has to be Mass Art

or MIT

[Zuni]

7. USC

The trojans are the best.

They were even better when OJ Simpson 'slashed' and 'sliced' through the defense

[Bertha Venation]

9. okay, I agree, but . . .

no one's answering the question. :(

Is such a game a possibility?!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. not this year

cannot change the rules in midstream. But, next year could be a possibilty. Most likey, this problem will be prevented (for the most part) by not allowing a non conference-winner to play for the big game.

Face it, we put a computer program in charge. We should live with what we got and improve the program next time.

TheProdigal

[Ohio Dem]

13. The only way that works is if all the conferences have a championship game

or none of them do. If the Big 12 plays by the Pac 10's rules (no championship game), Oklahoma never loses to KSU. It would still have been Oklahoma and LSU in the Sugar Bowl

And there are scenarios where two teams from the Pac 10 or Big 10 go undefeated all year and never play each other. It almost happened in the Big Ten last year. In that case, the conference's tiebreakers determine the champion of the conference, and in the case of the Big Ten with two undefeated teams, it comes down to what team has gone the longest without winning will be selected. Are you saying that one of them is automatically inelegible for the MNC?

[recidivist]

11. There is no national champion without a playoff.

An honest playoff. That means:

Eight teams. Four is too few to include all the plausible claimants, and 16 brings in too many second and third place conference teams and three loss teams. A fair balance would probably have six major conference champions with automatic bids and two at large slots to accommodate minor conferences and independents. Maybe five and three.

A team would have to win its conference to participate. This would put pressure on the new, made-for-tv conferences to morph back into real leagues with real round-robins, or something close to it, to produce real champions. No runners-up need apply.

The playoff sites should be geographically balanced. I'd be happy to flip a coin and let the winner host the game, but if neutral sites were desired, a fair share need to be in the cold weather states. The fun-in-the-sun bowl format is obviously biased in terms of styles of play. Real football is meant to be played under all conditions, and one of the tests of a great team is being able to ram the ball up the middle when fingers are numb, the slush is freezing, the cheerleaders are in parkas, and the fancy-pants passing games are shut down.

May the best team win. On the field, not in the polls 'n bowls derby.

[Ohio Dem]

14. I like it all expect the conference champion thing.

It's quite possible that the best two teams in the country are in the same conference. Why leave one of them out?

[recidivist]

17. On the other hand, why should anyone have to beat the same opponent twice?

Suppose the two best teams in the country, as ranked by the Cosmic Evaluator (me), are in the same conference. This indeed happens from time to time. In principle, they should meet in conference play, and the winner of that game will generally be the conference champion.

Yes, we can work out scenarios where Ohio State beats Michigan but Michigan wins the Big Ten because Ohio State has two losses elsewhere, but then we're not talking about the two best teams in the country anymore, are we?

If we allow conference runners-up into the national tournament, the champion faces the prospect of having to beat the same team twice. That's not really fair, it creates the risk of the two teams splitting the two games, and it has the added price of leaving another deserving team out of the big dance.

The real issue with conference runners-up arises from our current tarted up, made-for-tv conferences that no longer have a real round robin in conference play. They therefore don't crown legitimate conference champions and face the routine prospect of the two best teams not meeting. The solution is for the conferences to realign. They've been doing this routinely in recent years for the purpose of building tv markets, so I have no reluctance in suggesting that they realign again for competitive purposes.

[OldSoldier]

21. And now you're back to the BCS

Which is like democracy--a terrible system except for all the others.

[recidivist]

22. How so?

I'm proposing an eight team playoff, major conference champions with automatic bids, no runners-up, two or three slots reserved for major independents or "minor" conferences, geographically balanced which means the occasional championship game will be played in Michigan Stadium in sub-arctic conditions.

The conferences would be prompted to realign -- this would take a few years, but it would happen -- to a true round robin format to avoid the possibility of a serious unbeaten national contender having to sit at home. Such a realignment would be a good thing, IMHO -- very much a return to traditional ways, in fact.

[northzax]

12. once again, I have a modest proposal

that will allow everyone to name a natinal champion (of course it will destroy what's left of 'tradition' but who cares about that? we want more money.

On February 1, the NCAA will announce a bracket, randomly assigned (using geographic considerations) for every NCAA Div I team. Each team starts the season by playing another undefeated team (obviously) the winners move on, the losers move to the loser's bracket. Yes, it's a logistical nightmare, but it's only fair. The second week, the winners play only winners, the losers play losers. This continues, until you have one team with no losses, and two teams with one loss. Obviously, one of those teams has lost to the winner of the winner's bracket. The second place team in the winner's bracket plays the winner of the one-loss bracket. That team is now the only one loss team in the country. They play the winner of the winner's bracket for all the marbles. You end up with one of two scenarios: either one no loss team (obviousl national champions) or two one loss teams who have played each other, obviously the winner of that game is the best in the nation. Sure, there are no more regional rivalries, but hey, we want a national champion, right? This could all take place in 8 weeks, with a bye for each.

Hell, given the short weeks, we coupld play a 'preseason' for rankings in the bracket, three games each to impress the committee, who would sit in a hotel room in Omaha and deliver te remaining schedule.

[PVnRT]

15. They should do it like that every year

Have all the bowl games as normal, revert to the way they used to be (Rose Bowl = Pac 10 vs. Big 10, Sugar Bowl = Big 12 vs. SEC, and so forth), and have one bowl game the following week, #1 vs. #2. If there isn't a clear-cut #1 and #2 by that point, you will never find one.

But, even if that works flawlessly, you will still have the endless cacophany of whiners who are convinced that a playoff will be our savior, and will make college football oh so wonderful and perfect. Never mind the extended season. Or do you get rid of bowl games? That would be wonderful news for teams like Boise State who are probably never going to get into a playoff system.

[GumboYaYa]

16. These are college kids.

Playing football is really tough on your body. I remember when I played, by the end of the season you are completely exhausted. There is a limit to the number of games their bodies can take in a year.

Under the current system with as many as 12 regular season games and a conference championship for some, there are already too many games per year for these kids.

To me the imperfections make it more fun. I can argue forever with USC fans about who was better this year (although I know USC would be lucky to score 10 points in LSU).

[Bertha Venation]

19. LOL My nephew,

six feet tall and 120 pound soaking wet is a college "kid."

College football players are field-churning, hit-em-high, cover-the-ball, carb-loading, beef-loading, iron-pumping monsters!

OTOH, they do have to go to class....

[GumboYaYa]

20. You have clearly never been hit by a pulling guard

who weighs 300 lbs. I don't care how big you are, it hurts. Young bodies, no matter how large, break down when they get hit that hard frequently.

There have been a number of scientific studies on this and the evidence is very strong that football does extensive damage to young people's bodies.

I can predict cold fronts because of all the aches and pains I still have from playing football.

[recidivist]

23. The smaller schools have football playoffs.

It is only the mega-buck, NFL training ground biggies who are too busy chasing bowl $$$$ who don't produce a true champion on the playing field.

If the real student athletes in the small schools can undergo the rigors of an extra game or two, so can their NFL-bound peers.

If we are really concerned about the wear and tear on the players, let's cut the regular season back to the traditional ten games. Of course, the majors would lose television money, so that would never happen.

[GumboYaYa]

24. I agree.

Division II schedules are limited to ten - eleven games per year outside of the playoffs.

Division I made a playoff almost impossible by going to twelve games with a possibility of 13 or 14 with a conference championship and then a bowl game. After runing that gauntlet, two more games are too much IMO.

As you point out, playoffs would require eliminating some of the regular season games. The schools depend on that revenue to support the athletic programs including the programs required by Title IX. There is no way that the schools will give up that revenue for a playoff system. Not too mention the TV revenue that the networks get from the extended season.

[Braden]

25. what if game would be a logistical nightmare

and very expensive. Not to mention some stadium is going to risk losing an opportunity to host a concert, or other event if the football game werent needed. The stadium would require a huge "what if" payment.

play out the bowls, and then take a week off and let #1-4 playoff for the crown.