Championship

[seIRISH]

True, there would be a few "garbage" teams in there...but you could also seed the conferences so that the WAC Champ doesn't pull as much weight as the ACC Champ, and so on.

But I also think that it would open things up to be decided on the field. I'm not saying that Utah could beat an Auburn or a USC...but just like in March Madness, anything can happen in a "one & done" situation.

But honestly you don't think the two best are playing tonight.I just think that the strength of you schedule should rule.These teams are the ones who set up the games unlike the NFL.If you don't schedule tough games you don't make it.I know you don't know how good a team will be in five years but it is safe to say cal tech lousiana st or whom ever Nebraska opens up with will never be ranked.
Stop the preseason poll,go on strength of schedule,and have a set formula for who will qualify for the bowl games.Also take out the the automatics.

 

[Rip Rap]

Ditch both the preseason poll and the BCS. If there is a BCS-like system, it should be administered by the NCAA, not the cable networks, and defined and used by the NCAA as an official body.

A 16-team playoff is at least a full month of additional football. The schools will not allow this, as it would completely undermine the purpose of the academy. Playoffs are not good for the players, and would diminish the bowl system which is already completely out-of-control. There should be something like 12 bowl games, and they should all be played on New Year's Day.

And no, college football is not a minor league. That is why asswipes like Clarett and their whiny lawsuits are so problematic. And if you want to boost graduation rates, give the schools more scholarships. Likewise, if you really want the rubbish out of football, get serious with the penalities for infractions. College football needs to get cleaned up, not junked up.

 

[NDLyght37]

Personally I think Auburn & Oklahoma are the 2 best teams. Nothing against USC, but I think that USC got their spot by virtue of the preseason polls. Auburn was behind the 8-ball from the start, despite being in a tougher conference. I think USC is more than capable of beating either Auburn or Oklahoma...but I'd at least like to see a 4 team BCS-playoff to settle things on the field.

 

[NDLyght37]

A 16-team playoff is at least a full month of additional football. The schools will not allow this, as it would completely undermine the purpose of the academy. Playoffs are not good for the players, and would diminish the bowl system which is already completely out-of-control. There should be something like 12 bowl games, and they should all be played on New Year's Day.

Not really. I mean, as it is we're already playing games a month after the season ends. And we're playing 27 bowl games. A playoff would cut down on meaningless bowl games, and it wouldn't take any longer than the system we have right now...all 13 games could be completed within a month.

 

[seIRISH]

Ditch both the preseason poll and the BCS. If there is a BCS-like system, it should be administered by the NCAA, not the cable networks, and defined and used by the NCAA as an official body.

A 16-team playoff is at least a full month of additional football. The schools will not allow this, as it would completely undermine the purpose of the academy. Playoffs are not good for the players, and would diminish the bowl system which is already completely out-of-control. There should be something like 12 bowl games, and they should all be played on New Year's Day.

And no, college football is not a minor league. That is why asswipes like Clarett and their whiny lawsuits are so problematic. And if you want to boost graduation rates, give the schools more scholarships. Likewise, if you really want the rubbish out of football, get serious with the penalities for infractions. College football needs to get cleaned up, not junked up.

Good points.I hated when the started moving games to differant days.One of my best memiories as a kid was getting every tv in the house together so I could watch all the bowl games.That was what New years day used to be like.Now it's on a freakin tuesday night.Happy tuesday just doesn't sound right

 

[seIRISH]

Not really. I mean, as it is we're already playing games a month after the season ends. And we're playing 27 bowl games. A playoff would cut down on meaningless bowl games, and it wouldn't take any longer that the system we have right now...all 13 games could be completed within a month.

yeah but they also have finals that month. remember this collegeEducation first football games second.The only way to clean it up again is to go back to that way of thinking.STUDENT athletes.ATHLETES who can basket weave with the
best of them. I like the first one.

 

[BigIrish]

Ditch both the preseason poll and the BCS. If there is a BCS-like system, it should be administered by the NCAA, not the cable networks, and defined and used by the NCAA as an official body.

A 16-team playoff is at least a full month of additional football. The schools will not allow this, as it would completely undermine the purpose of the academy. Playoffs are not good for the players, and would diminish the bowl system which is already completely out-of-control. There should be something like 12 bowl games, and they should all be played on New Year's Day.

And no, college football is not a minor league. That is why asswipes like Clarett and their whiny lawsuits are so problematic. And if you want to boost graduation rates, give the schools more scholarships. Likewise, if you really want the rubbish out of football, get serious with the penalities for infractions. College football needs to get cleaned up, not junked up.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that the AP has pulled out of the BCS. Doubt we'll see a tourney, but the BCS will look drastically different soon.

Rip-Rap - you're asking for a major sea change in college athletics. The NCAA is not a controlling organization in that sense.

The Bowl system could stand to be diminished a little, but frankly, a playoff would have little negative effect, if any. It would take the top bowls and make them playoff games, probably putting more, not less money in their pockets. The remaining bowls would go on as usual for teams that failed to make the cut.

I agree - 16 teams is probably too many. But 10 or less is not. And the effect on academics? Minimal. Most semsters are over by the first or second week of December, and most university's give their students a month break. But the bowls (the majority) aren't played for two to three weeks afterwards. 1) The athletes are in classes, 2) The players are still practicing through the month of december under the current system - how would adding a couple more games cause a problem, 3) I'd bet most college football players would trade up their winter break for a few more games, a chance to travel, and a national championship.

I agree - give serious penalties for violations. And no, TECHNICALLY it's not a minor league, but that's where kids go to showcase their talents for the pro's. It serves as a minor league. But more scholarships translating into higher grad rates? I don't even see the relationship there. Are you suggesting it's the non-scholarship athletes that aren't graduating?

 

[Rip Rap]

The NCAA awards the official championship in every sport except football.

 

[BigIrish]

yeah but they also have finals that month. remember this collegeEducation first football games second.The only way to clean it up again is to go back to that way of thinking.STUDENT athletes.ATHLETES who can basket weave with the
best of them. I like the first one.

Isn't that like putting the rabbit back in the hat? It'd be nice to turn the clock back pre-1950's, but how? Look at the stats. If you set a 50% minimum graduation rate, which is a meager goal, somewhere around half the teams that played in bowls this year would be ineligible. Are the good ol' boys that run the bowls going to let that happen? Who's going to tell the Tennessee's of college football that a 10% graduation rate isn't good enough? The NCAA? Good luck with that. They won't touch that issue.

 

[Rip Rap]

But more scholarships translating into higher grad rates? I don't even see the relationship there. Are you suggesting it's the non-scholarship athletes that aren't graduating?

More scholarships means more opportunity to spread your personnel. Kids used to only get serious playing time late in their collegiate careers because all the best players were on the same ten teams and you first had to prove yourself. So they stayed for their degree.

Further, if you weren't on one of those teams you knew you were going to be an accountant anyway. That's why they all graduated.

It will never go back to that entirely, but there should be at least 92 scholarships so that you're 4-deep at every position on both sides of the ball, with a backup for both your punter and kicker. And when they talk about leaving for the NFL, play the next guy on the depth chart.

 

[seIRISH]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that the AP has pulled out of the BCS. Doubt we'll see a tourney, but the BCS will look drastically different soon.

Rip-Rap - you're asking for a major sea change in college athletics. The NCAA is not a controlling organization in that sense.

The Bowl system could stand to be diminished a little, but frankly, a playoff would have little negative effect, if any. It would take the top bowls and make them playoff games, probably putting more, not less money in their pockets. The remaining bowls would go on as usual for teams that failed to make the cut.

I agree - 16 teams is probably too many. But 10 or less is not. And the effect on academics? Minimal. Most semsters are over by the first or second week of December, and most university's give their students a month break. But the bowls (the majority) aren't played for two to three weeks afterwards. 1) The athletes are in classes, 2) The players are still practicing through the month of december under the current system - how would adding a couple more games cause a problem, 3) I'd bet most college football players would trade up their winter break for a few more games, a chance to travel, and a national championship.

I agree - give serious penalties for violations. And no, TECHNICALLY it's not a minor league, but that's where kids go to showcase their talents for the pro's. It serves as a minor league. But more scholarships translating into higher grad rates? I don't even see the relationship there. Are you suggesting it's the non-scholarship athletes that aren't graduating?

Yeah but what about going home for christmas.Finals are also that month.Don't give me the rap they practice anyway during dec.It is a lot differant practicing for one game then three.I know it can't be the same as it was I just hope it doesn't keep getting closer to the pro's.By adding all these extra game aren't you just furthering the demise of college football because you want to see it.You have to think about the players. For some of them ,especilly at ND ,there are other things besides just football.

 

[irishgo8]

Iol i think we fans should just see what devolops...i think there has been complaining enough - let the coaches and writers keep it up look at this from ESPN
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1958914

 

[seIRISH]

Understand your concern since you live in the heart of Trojanland but I have to pull for the men of Troy tonight for only one reason: Oklahoma has 7 AP National Championships, USC has 4 and ND has 8. If OU wins tonight they will tie us for most NCs in the AP. This would be a tragedy. We have already lost the highest winning % to UM this year we cannot afford to lose our NC advantage as well!

well we actully have eleven national championships.24,29,30,43,46,47,49,66,73,77,88 andeight heisman

 

[irishgo8]

wow didnt know that few

 

[NDLyght37]

Yeah but what about going home for christmas.Finals are also that month.Don't give me the rap they practice anyway during dec.It is a lot differant practicing for one game then three.I know it can't be the same as it was I just hope it doesn't keep getting closer to the pro's.By adding all these extra game aren't you just furthering the demise of college football because you want to see it.You have to think about the players. For some of them ,especilly at ND ,there are other things besides just football.

I don't think it would be that much difference from what they're doing now. There are so many games during Christmas week that these kids are basically pros as it is. If you go to the 16-game playoff system, then you can start all the games a week after the season ends, start the playoffs the first week of december, take Christmas week off, and have the championship game on New Year's Day.

 

[irishgo8]

Please dont get rid of the Bowls

 

[NDViking66]

Did anyone see the game last night? Auburn beat VT all over the field and it's a shame they have no shot at the NC

Not so. I saw the game. Here is the stats. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=250030259

VT beat AU all over the field. If it wasn't for a dropped pass by the fullback in the endzone, the QB over throwing a wide open receiver in the endzone, a missed FG, and two interceptions, VT wins. The stats show that VT had decisive ball control over
AU. Not time of possession but total yards.

All those stats don't matter though. AU got the W.

 

[Vince Young]

So... what you're all saying is that you want to replace a system where a bunch of people in dark, smoke-filled rooms pick who plays for the national championship... with a system where a bunch of people in dark, smoke-filled rooms pick who plays for the national championship.

Get real. If you have a committee pick for a 4 team playoff, #5 is gonna whine that they got left out. If you have a committee pick for an 8 team playoff, #9 is gonna whine. And on and on.

I mean, who would the 8 teams be this year, anyway? Virginia Tech is #9 and Auburn is #3, but Auburn almost lost anyway. Maybe Virginia Tech was underrated? But then you bump out Georgia or Louisville, and they start whining. Cal is #4 and lost to #22 Texas Tech. Boise State is undefeated but ranked #10. Utah is #6 and undefeated, but played a pathetic schedule.

"Yeah, but with a playoff, at least the championship will be decided on the field," I hear you say. Excuse me, but wasn't it decided on the field tonight? And it would've been decided on the field last year too, except that a bunch of idiot sportswriters decided to invent a controversy by voting for an overrated USC team that lost to unranked Cal, just so they could have something to write about. What a pack of spoiled brats. I'm GLAD they pulled out of the BCS. Good riddance.

No matter how you pick the top X teams, the team that is ranked X+1 is gonna whine. Too bad. You don't reinvent the wheel just to make them happy. You tell 'em, "Tough. Next time, don't give up control of your own destiny."

All USC had to do last year was beat unranked California. All Auburn had to do this year was replace Louisiana-Monroe (Division 1-AA), The Citadel (Division 1-AA) and Louisiana Tech (Division 1-A, but just barely) with some real teams on their schedule. They were entirely in control of their own destinies, and instead they put themselves in situations where it was possible they'd get left out, and that's what happened. Too bad. It's not the BCS's fault that USC lost to Cal, or that Auburn played a pansy schedule. Cry me a frickin' river.

The two best teams played for the title last year, and the two best teams played for the title this year. The BCS works.

 

[Vince Young]

And one more thing... this stupidity about "They stick with the bowls because it's all about the money" needs to be shot down, and permanently.

Right now, the top 8 teams play 4 games, often with huge mismatches thanks to conference-bowl contracts. (THAT is the weakness in the bowl system.) With a playoff, the top 8 teams would play 7 games. That's 3 extra games, 3 extra doses of TV ad revenue and 3 extra corporate sponsorships. And all 7 games would be premeire matchups to boot. Leave the rest of the bowl system in place for everyone outside of the top 8, and I guarantee college football would make more money than the current bowl system.

If it really WAS all about the money, we would've had playoffs 10 years ago. So don't even TRY that line on me.

 

[NDLyght37]

You raise very valid points VY...but I still think a 16-team playoff could work. That way you only have the comittee picking 5 teams. The other 11 slots would be filled by virtue of winning your conference championship. Would people still complain? Yes...but it would also make conference titles mean something again. Obviously there will always be some whining about teams that get left off, but at least this way it's determined by the teams. Not by writers or computers.

 

[BigIrish]

And one more thing... this stupidity about "They stick with the bowls because it's all about the money" needs to be shot down, and permanently.

Right now, the top 8 teams play 4 games, often with huge mismatches thanks to conference-bowl contracts. (THAT is the weakness in the bowl system.) With a playoff, the top 8 teams would play 7 games. That's 3 extra games, 3 extra doses of TV ad revenue and 3 extra corporate sponsorships. And all 7 games would be premeire matchups to boot. Leave the rest of the bowl system in place for everyone outside of the top 8, and I guarantee college football would make more money than the current bowl system.

If it really WAS all about the money, we would've had playoffs 10 years ago. So don't even TRY that line on me.

You're fooling yourself if you think that it's not about money. All they're doing is protecting the system that currently puts money in their pockets versus an untested, unproven system who's power brokers may change through it's creation. When you're making oodles of money, why mess with a good thing?

I think Machiavelli (from "The Prince") pretty much sums up the idea...

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new system."

 

[Vince Young]

Conference champs... yeah, about that...

Let's look at them using the December 5th BCS rankings, the last one before the bowls. The no-brainers are USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Virginia Tech, Boise State and Louisville, all top-10 teams. And I'll take Michigan at #13, that's fine.

But Pittsburgh at #21, winning a pathetic Big East conference? Then there's the MAC and Sun Belt Conference winners, Toledo and North Texas, both UNRANKED.

There's 11, with 5 at-large spots. Give 'em to Texas, California, Georgia, LSU and Iowa, in order of BCS ranking.

Now, have fun calling Miami, Tennessee and FSU (or heck, Wisconsin) to explain that they have to stay out of the playoffs so that Pittsburgh, Toledo and North Texas can have the honor of losing 77-0 in the opening round.

I'm sorry, but when you only have 16 playoff spots, you don't waste one on an unranked 7-4 team just because they won the Sun Belt Conference. Hell, I didn't even know there WAS a Sun Belt Conference until I looked it up on sports.yahoo.com.

I can be convinced on a playoff, but not with a system that lets in all 11 conference winners. Ugh.

 

[irishgo8]

Conference champs... yeah, about that...

Let's look at them using the December 5th BCS rankings, the last one before the bowls. The no-brainers are USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Virginia Tech, Boise State and Louisville, all top-10 teams. And I'll take Michigan at #13, that's fine.

But Pittsburgh at #21, winning a pathetic Big East conference? Then there's the MAC and Sun Belt Conference winners, Toledo and North Texas, both UNRANKED.

There's 11, with 5 at-large spots. Give 'em to Texas, California, Georgia, LSU and Iowa, in order of BCS ranking.

Now, have fun calling Miami, Tennessee and FSU (or heck, Wisconsin) to explain that they have to stay out of the playoffs so that Pittsburgh, Toledo and North Texas can have the honor of losing 77-0 in the opening round.

I'm sorry, but when you only have 16 playoff spots, you don't waste one on an unranked 7-4 team just because they won the Sun Belt Conference. Hell, I didn't even know there WAS a Sun Belt Conference until I looked it up on sports.yahoo.com.

I can be convinced on a playoff, but not with a system that lets in all 11 conference winners. Ugh.

well we should se a dramitic improvement in the Big East next year - Lousiville, Cinnati, and three other of the top Conf-USA teams going to the BIg East....If they dont improve I can agree with u - just keep automatic bids out

 

[Vince Young]

You're fooling yourself if you think that it's not about money.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. A playoff system is hardly "unproven" from a financial standpoint. Division 1-AA doesn't exactly go bankrupt from it, and neither does college basketball. A playoff system would make more money, if for no other reason than that it would extend the season and create even more games.

And what is so broken about the BCS anyway? I simply don't believe that it isn't working. The only reason the title split last year is because a bunch of bratty sportswriters saw a chance to manufacture a story by over-hyping USC. They would've done the exact same thing with Oklahoma or LSU last year if one of them had been left out instead, just for the sake of creating something to whine about. This year, they knew they couldn't get away with a repeat performance with Auburn, so instead they threw a temper tantrum and pulled out of the BCS altogether, all so they could flex their muscles and write about themselves in the third-person, hyping their noble stand. If they really knew anything about football, they'd be coaching it, not writing about it. Screw 'em.

 

[BigIrish]

Unproven...Perhaps that was the wrong choice of words. The point is that the bowl committees, when confronted with the notion of a playoff, are undoubtedly asking themselves, "how do we implement a playoff system while continuing to protect the money that we make with the current system?" And since there's a fair amount of complexity to the issue, I think the bowl committees have always responded collectively by saying "Let's not open that can of worms. Our profits are doubling or tripling the rate of inflation as it is." Fundamentally, the BCS is designed to lend credibility to (through computers, stats, polls, etc) and legitimize a postseason bowl system that's remained relatively unchanged for years. And that's why nothing ever changes.

 

[Vince Young]

Bigirish, I'm not sure we'll get very far on the money debate, but I'll add this anyway. I have absolutely nothing to gain financially from the current bowl system, yet I continue to oppose a playoff anyway. For me, it's not about financial reasons. It's about maintaining the special nature of college football versus professional football, the feeling that there are only so many games and that you'd better make each one count, and that taking a week off means you get left out of the title hunt.

A playoff wouldn't be a travesty by any means, but anyone who thinks it would solve all the problems of the current system is, to put it bluntly, delusional. An 8-team playoff just means that now the shadowy committee will pick 8 teams instead of 2, and teams that have a playoff spot wrapped up will bench their starters for the last couple of games. That's not progress. That's NFL Jr. We already tried NFL Jr... it was called the XFL, and it sucked. No thank you.

Now, isn't it possible that some of the bowl-insiders oppose a playoff for the same reasons I do? Amazing concept, I know, but not everybody is driven solely by money.

Here's a scenario... let's take this year's 8 BCS teams and seed them in a playoff. #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, #4 Texas, #5 Utah, #6Virginia Tech, #7 Michigan, #8 Pittsburgh.

USC pairs up with an easy game against Pittsburgh. Oklahoma draws Michigan. Auburn draws Virginia Tech, and spends the entire two week build-up to the playoffs whining that because they got seeded #3, they'll have a tougher road to the title game than USC and Oklahoma, and it's not fair because Auburn should be #1 and get the easy Pittsburgh game instead. Lee Corso blows a capillary on live television complaining about what a mess the playoff system is, everyone is arguing back and forth, and the frickin' playoffs haven't even STARTED yet.

And then once Auburn struggles by Virginia Tech while Oklahoma and USC coast to victory, a beat-up Auburn team runs into a barely-tired Oklahoma team in the semis, while USC doesn't even need to shower before their game against Texas. Oklahoma wins, and Auburn fans spend the entire offseason whining about how the seeding system robbed them, while USC blows out Oklahoma in the title game, giving us THE EXACT SAME RESULTS WE JUST GOT.

Now, how the hell did that 8-game playoff help matters at all?

 

[Irish1]

Bigirish, I'm not sure we'll get very far on the money debate, but I'll add this anyway. I have absolutely nothing to gain financially from the current bowl system, yet I continue to oppose a playoff anyway. For me, it's not about financial reasons. It's about maintaining the special nature of college football versus professional football, the feeling that there are only so many games and that you'd better make each one count, and that taking a week off means you get left out of the title hunt.

A playoff wouldn't be a travesty by any means, but anyone who thinks it would solve all the problems of the current system is, to put it bluntly, delusional. An 8-team playoff just means that now the shadowy committee will pick 8 teams instead of 2, and teams that have a playoff spot wrapped up will bench their starters for the last couple of games. That's not progress. That's NFL Jr. We already tried NFL Jr... it was called the XFL, and it sucked. No thank you.

Now, isn't it possible that some of the bowl-insiders oppose a playoff for the same reasons I do? Amazing concept, I know, but not everybody is driven solely by money.

Here's a scenario... let's take this year's 8 BCS teams and seed them in a playoff. #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, #4 Texas, #5 Utah, #6Virginia Tech, #7 Michigan, #8 Pittsburgh.

USC pairs up with an easy game against Pittsburgh. Oklahoma draws Michigan. Auburn draws Virginia Tech, and spends the entire two week build-up to the playoffs whining that because they got seeded #3, they'll have a tougher road to the title game than USC and Oklahoma, and it's not fair because Auburn should be #1 and get the easy Pittsburgh game instead. Lee Corso blows a capillary on live television complaining about what a mess the playoff system is, everyone is arguing back and forth, and the frickin' playoffs haven't even STARTED yet.

And then once Auburn struggles by Virginia Tech while Oklahoma and USC coast to victory, a beat-up Auburn team runs into a barely-tired Oklahoma team in the semis, while USC doesn't even need to shower before their game against Texas. Oklahoma wins, and Auburn fans spend the entire offseason whining about how the seeding system robbed them, while USC blows out Oklahoma in the title game, giving us THE EXACT SAME RESULTS WE JUST GOT.

Now, how the hell did that 8-game playoff help matters at all?

Well done vince young, well done.....

 

[Vince Young]

Heck, how 'bout another scenario? Same 8 teams, but both Oklahoma and Auburn get upset in round 1. USC beats #7 Michigan in the title game, and Lee Corso says, "Yeah, USC won, but they never got tested against Oklahoma or Auburn." The AP whines about their poll being used in the "flawed" seeding system and writes a cease-and-desist letter to the playoff committee. Everyone's arguing, and nobody's sure that USC is REALLY the best team, because their first-round game was so much easier than everyone else's.

A playoff is NOT an instant solution. All it does is slightly re-shape the debate. If you still prefer that to the BCS, fine. But don't sell me a playoff as some sort of cure-all or panacea.

 

[NDLyght37]

Granted I may be biased because a local team just made an exciting run through the division I-AA playoffs and won the title...But I'm still a playoff guy. The BCS's only job is to match #1 with #2...in the opinions of computers & writers. And they probably did that this year (I still think Auburn should have had an opportunity to get beaten by USC). But the BCS also renders every other game pretty much useless. I don't think a playoff is a cure-all, but it does clarify things. Noone ever disputes who is the NCAA champion in basketball. And just because USC would probably ultimately win, that doesn't mean that an 8 or 16 team playoffs wouldn't be exciting.

I mean we know almost every year that teams like Duke, Kentucky, etc. will be in the Final Four...but the "Road To The Final Four(tm) " is part of the fun of getting there. This year it would have been great to see how Utah & Lousiville stacked up against the "Big Boys" before bowing out.

Also, this gives meaning to the "minor bowls"...and it probably would eliminate a lot of them. I mean, do we really need 27 different bowl games? I'd dump about 10 of the minor bowls and use the following bowls for my playoff sites: Sugar, Orange, Peach, Citrus, Aloha, Holiday, Fiesta, Cotton, Capital One, Las Vegas, Alamo, Outback, Liberty. The National Championship would rotate from year to year. I'd keep the Rose Bowl, but reserve it for the historical Big 10/Pac 10 matchup for the top teams from those conferences who didn't make the playoffs. The last bowl I'd have would be a meaningless bowl game held at Boise...mainly for money & ratings, but also as a reward for exciting teams. If you really wanted to get corporate, you could get a big computer sponsor & have the fans pick two teams from about a pool of 8. Just pick two exciting teams and stick them on that blue carpet and let them go.

It wouldn't be a perfect system, but I think it would be a welcome change from our current system.

 

[Aerosmith777]

I think what a lot of you are missing is that the money situation with bowls is not HOW MUCH money there is in the pot, but WHO GETS THE MONEY. With the system the way it is, BCS school hog almost all the cash in the pot for themselves. Non-BCS schools (like Utah this year) practically have to answer 3 riddles and cross a snake pit just to be "considered" for a BCS game, and then when they crush their oponent, everyone says, "Well, they beat Pitt, but everyone knows Pitt sucks. There's no way they can hang with Auburn or USC." when the reality is there is absolutely no way of ever knowing that b/c we'll never have a playoff system that allows those schools to compete w/ the BCS schools.

A playoff of system, like the one in basketball, might add more money to the pot, but it will also increase the chances of a school like Utah or Boise State getting in & getting that money if they go undefeated, while 2 loss Virginia Tech sits out.

I do agree however that any playoff can't be based solely on conference winners, although its not even b/c of the non-bcs conferences I think that. I mean, seriously, would anybody have liked to see Pitt in a playoff scenario this year? I know that system works in basketball, but football is different. Basketball players can play games several days in a row, so there's room for the winner of the MAC as a 16 seed to come to the party and get blown out by Duke or North Carolina and nobody cares. But with football its different, b/c you might be giving that 7-5 MAC winner a spot at the expense of like a 10-1 team from the SEC, which obviously isn't fair.

Anyway, I would like to see a playoff, but only like an 8 team playoff. I know #9 will still complain, but at least all they're complaing about is a spot in the playoffs, not really a legitamite claim to the title the way Auburn is this year. See, the #9 team this year, realistically, would have no chance against any of the top 3. But Auburn would have a legitamite chance to beat USC. But we'll never know b/c there's no playoff.