College football: What might have been

I don't understand why it would be ridiculous to have to win the playoffs for the championship. Going undefeated would give a team a top seed which gives them the best shot at winning (you know, just like almost every other sports league). All the other NCAA football divisions have playoffs so does NCAA basketball, hockey, baseball...

Link is up now in the first sentence.

Sixteen is not too big, and you have to include conference champs to make it legitimate. An eight team playoff that takes the top 8 in the BCS is still just the big boys keeping everything for themselves. If we can have 65 teams in the basketball tourney and 32 in the college world series, we can have a 16 team playoff in football.

As for your Devil's advocate case: yes, they would have to win for more. That's what playoffs are. Was it ridiculous for the Pats to have to win a few more games after going undefeated in the regular season, or should we have just anointed them champs after 16-0?

I don't understand how people can argue against a playoff when it is good enough for every other league out there.

you could certainly cut a little fat off the fluffer schedule to start the season

You have a valid point with Alabama, but then again, Florida might as well be in that same position save for the 1 yard loss to Ole Miss, which could have been avoided had Tebow gotten in from the one. Still, that's not different that the current NFL playoffs, where you could have made that argument with the Pats last year...

Anyways, I like 16 teams. That way, you include any legit contender as well as create some interest with possible upsets. Maybe 12 teams with some byes could work as well. Plus there'd be less bitching, as those teams in the middle-teens of the BCS really didn't have a shot anyways

if NCAA basketball plays during the break and football teams are practicing anyway, what's the difference?

Plus all the other Divisions have playoffs of this size, why can't 1-A?

Was it ridiculous for the Pats to have to win a few more games after going undefeated in the regular season, or should we have just anointed them champs after 16-0? Great minds think alike Tay...ha!

That was my thought too Jut, but I didn't want to rub salt in the wound.

I agree with one correction, JuT: mid-teens BCS teams don't make this playoff. TCU was the last at large team in, ranked 11th in the BCS. Anyone ranked lower was a conference champ.

My bad, that's what I meant Tay

I don't know how including Troy makes it "more legitimate." Including all conference champions is a bit silly.

Again, I'm for a playoff, but larger than 12 is too big. Ohio State doesn't deserve any chance at the title, neither does TCU.

NFL team's almost never have perfect regular seasons. College teams have them. The Patriots season was an anomaly for the NFL. And they still only had to win 3 games after going 16-0, not 4. And they received a bye.

The inclusion of Troy in particular doesn't make it legitimate, but the inclusion of conference champs does. Do all conference champs "deserve" a shot at the national title in basketball? No, not necessarily--some of them just got hot for a week and won their conference tournament. But they are included, because all conference champs deserve a shot at the next level. Besides, doing it this way rather than taking the top 16 keeps good but not great teams like Georgia out. Dropping to 12 and having byes is pointless as well because it doesn't save any time. To do that, you'd have to drop to eight, which I find unacceptable. As for perfect seasons: no one (other than Utah and Boise State) had a perfect season, but eight teams had one loss. How can the BCS currently differentiate them? And if a perfect season was the requirement, then why aren't Utah and Boise State playing in the national championship game? This is not about perfect seasons, it's about determining a national champ, and the BCS as currently composed can't do it.

But, the NFL only has 32 teams to narrow down to 12.

No, the inclusion of Troy, or any Sun Belt Champion makes it illegitimate. Watching Oklahoma put 90 points on the board against Troy isn't entertaining, it's sad.

You keep comparing your system to the basketball tournament. Interesting since very few people care about regular season college basketball, at least not as much as they do about football. And if it weren't for gambling the tournament would only be half as popular.

From my point of view, your system's let 7 teams in that have no business even thinking about a national championship. Troy, Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, TCU, OSU, ECU, and Buffalo. That's a joke.

Again, I'm all for a playoff, but 16 teams is a few too many, and automatic bids for all 11 conferences is laughable (and would never ever ever happen). Boise State and Utah have legit cause to be there. Buffalo, Troy, and ECU do not.

No. I made the exact same case here last year when Texas was not involved. I've made the same case other places for seven years, including the year Texas was in the national championship game. As a matter of fact, I think right now OU is the better team, but the fact is that Texas beat them in October. And yet the BCS supporters would have us believe that the regular season matters.

Haha... no worries, I just had to throw it out there. No I agree with you though on the hold.

For me college football is this amazing thing that I love and hate all at the same time. I hate how the BCS screws around with stuff, and how before that you could have split champions and all that. But I love that the regular season means all. The more you open the pool up to let more teams in the less the regular season means. You can get some fluky teams sneaking into the top 10 or 16.

That being said, in all honesty I think Texas Tech should be the most pissed off team in the country right now.

It does matter, because Texas Tech beat Texas, and Oklahoma walloped Texas Tech. All those big games got huge ratings, higher ratings than most bowl games will get. Why? Because each one had huge consequences for the losing and winning team. With a a playoff, those games lose their luster, at least for me.

Rawb, I don't give a crap about ratings. I want a legit national champion and the BCS doesn't provide that.

How does including Troy legitimize anything???

RawB I agree with you completely which is why I have a hard time throwing away the current system. I love the fact that college football is a 15 week tourney just to get in position to play a championship game.

However, I do hate the idea of a split champion, or the idea of up to 3 legit contenders being locked out because they lost a game at the wrong time of the year.

It's and evil that I hate, but it is what makes college football college football.

I should rephrase a comment I made above. "With YOUR system, those games lose their luster, at least for me."

I'm against the BCS and for a playoff. 4, 6 or 8 teams. I'd like 6. 16 is too big, and including all conference champs is lame.

Troy legitimizes the whole situation because it is a conference champion. By allowing automatic bids to the Conf. champs the regular season retains it's importance. Which makes the TT, Texas and OK games important.

Not to mention, with a shot at the tourney every year, the Sub Belt teams might actually be able to recruit.

Rawb, I'm not going to argue with you about Troy or any other conference champ being included. I think it is necessary (and I have the fact that every other league I can think of, pro and college, does it as evidence); you don't think it is necessary. I freely admit that some teams in this playoff don't have a chance to win. But they won their conference, and I say that earns them the chance to prove themselves on the field.

The college basketball season is relatively benign because they play 30+ games, most have conference tournaments to decide their champ (and automatic bid), and because they let in 65 teams. A 16 team playoff in football doesn't create any of those situations.

The definition of meaningless regular season is Auburn going undefeated and missing out. It's Texas losing by five seconds and missing out while a team they beat fairly handily plays on. It's Boise State, Utah, etc going undefeated and missing out. The regular season is not a 15 week tournament. Don't kid yourselves. Oklahoma and Florida have done nothing to earn a shot at the national title over at least eight other teams. This whole thing is a joke.

Why should Troy get in just because they won the Sun Belt? I'm still having trouble grasping that winning the Sun Belt, or the MAC or C-USA or even the ACC should put you in a playoff. I guess if you're gonna have 16 teams you have to have conference champions in there. But why have so many teams?

Tay, are you actually reading my comments or are your Mack Brown induced crocodile tears clouding your vision? I DO NOT LIKE THE BCS, I WANT A PLAYOFF!!!

There are 14 conferences in I-AA, only 8 receive automatic berths to their tournament.

I'm sorry--I don't know what you are referring to, Rawb. I have addressed everything to you in the light of your preference for a playoff. I thought we had been discussing my inclusion of teams you did not find necessary. Any comments I have made about the current BCS system has been in response to BigP, or a general argument about the status quo. I have also responded to your comments about the basketball season. So clearly, I believe, I have been reading, and responding to, your comments. Furthermore, any comment about "Mack Brown induced crocodile tears" is both unnecessary and fallacious, as I have already addressed that sentiment. I expect better from you.

Didn't address this:

"and I have the fact that every other league I can think of, pro and college, does it as evidence"

Then I pointed out that D-IAA has 14 conferences, and only 8 conference champions receive automatic berths in their tournament.

WTF?

OK, Rawb, you're right then because you came up with one. Surely that cancels out NCAA basketball, NCAA baseball, division winners in the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL, etc... And of course you are also right that I must not have been reading your comments because I missed one thing, even though I addressed your other points.
I've always liked you because you could be rational. What happened to you?

Besides, remember how interesting the George Mason final 4 run was...that's why you allow those weird conference teams in

though ironically enough, I believe UNC-Wilmington beat GMU for the CAA title that year...

I like the tourney idea because when you see teams like Utah and Boise St go undefeated (and they played some decent teams) it makes you wonder why they don't get a title shot while a few one loss squads do.

I mean, they upset Oklahoma a few years ago. Plus can you imagine the ratings/betting bonanza these 15 games would get...

Plus, if you feel so inclined, you could either name the semis/final bowl games (each group of 4 could be the Fiesta Divsion or Rose Division etc) until they reach their own final 4...

Plus people would still watch the conference title games because of its automatic bid/seeding value...I mean, does anyone really think 'Bama could be the best team in the nation?

I'm sorry I'm not being as rational as you. Yes, the NL West winner gets a spot in baseball's playoffs, and I guess that means that Sun Belt and MAC winners should get a shot at the national title?

D-IAA football is the closest thing to D-IA football, so why not use their example? The top conferences get automatic berths, the lesser conferences don't. It is, after all, the same sport, and its also amateur.

And of all the problems with the BCS, of all the people complaining about it, you're the only one whose major beef is that the winners of the Sun Belt and MAC aren't involved. Nobody else, not even the winners of the Sun Belt and MAC, are complaining about their exclusion. Why is that?

I'm still failing to understand why winning the Sun Belt, or MAC, or ACC, or Big East, or Big Ten, or SEC should automatically qualify a team for a playoff. Oklahoma State had a better season than Virginia Tech. Why is Virginia Tech allowed to get in, but Oklahoma State is not? What is it about including all 11 conference champions that makes your system "legitimate" (your words), but illegitimatizes other potential playoff systems?

Your system inherently allows too many weak teams into it. By the way that's also the biggest reason it'll never happen. Try proposing to the Pac-10 or Big Ten that the reason they should adopt this system is so their teams might be upset. They'll eat it up.

JuT, the idea of playing playoff games at bowl sites and naming them after the bowl is a good one, but the bowls love their conference tie-ins, especially the larger bowls. The Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl know they're getting Big XII, and SEC teams, respectively. They know those teams travel well and will fill their stadiums. But especially in Tay's system, they won't have those assurances. The Fiesta Bowl would be PISSED if they had to host Troy vs. Boise State, for instance. These aren't college basketball arenas with 20,000 seats being filled by fans of 4 different teams playing the same day. These are stadiums ranging from 72,000 to 92,000 seats, with only 2 fanbases to travel and fill them.

As much fun as upsets can be, to me that isn't argument enough to change the system so radically that it causes one third of the teams vying for a national title to be extremely weak compared to the other two thirds. Why should winning a conference automatically give a team a playoff berth? And this isn't Major League Baseball or the NBA. This is college football. So far all I've gotten from Tay's argument is that the winner of every conference should be in for two reasons: 1) it's done in other sports, and 2) they won their conference so they should be in. One argument is irrelevant, the other is self-serving.

By the way, D-III has a 32 team playoff, but only has automatic bids for 23 of its 28 conferences. Is that tournament legitimate or not?

If Texas isn't as good as Oklahoma, [then why'd they beat 'em?]

Cuz they cheated?

At large bids are determined by highest BCS rank. TCU was ranked higher than both OK St and UGA--see the "missed the cut" list below the seedings.