U.S. Department of Justice asks NCAA why there's no playoff for football

[MtnBuff]

OK, so you both agree that no playoffs are better than playoffs because the team with the best record might lose? Nonsense.

No I don't want a playoff because it does not determine that years best team, just who got hot at the right time and got a good draw.

No system is perfect but to me a playoff is much less desirable than a system where every game matters for teams that want to win the championship. As I stated earlier I have no problem with a plus one. Beyond that everything gets watered down. Once you go eight teams then teams number 9 and 10 whine until you expand to 12 or 16 and you seat every conference champion plus some wildcards. Then the arguments start and you go to 24 or 32.

No thanks, I'll stay with the current system as it is. I don't care to see some 3 loss team get hot and suddenly they are the "champion."

 

[PhillyBuff]

No I don't want a playoff because it does not determine that years best team, just who got hot at the right time and got a good draw.

No system is perfect but to me a playoff is much less desirable than a system where every game matters for teams that want to win the championship. As I stated earlier I have no problem with a plus one. Beyond that everything gets watered down. Once you go eight teams then teams number 9 and 10 whine until you expand to 12 or 16 and you seat every conference champion plus some wildcards. Then the arguments start and you go to 24 or 32.

No thanks, I'll stay with the current system as it is. I don't care to see some 3 loss team get hot and suddenly they are the "champion."

Strength of schedule?

The 1995 Nebraska team played 2 ranked teams and they are the champions.... The 1990 Colorado played 6 ranked teams and they are national champions....

while I appreciate your emphasis in the regular season, what you seek to achieve can be manipulated by strength of schedule.....

I believe your adherence to every game matters can be accomplished by having only conference champions participate in the tournament and allowing the "lesser conferences" in.

Just a thought... what do you do in the case of a 1 loss SEC team, Big 10, and Pac-12 team is left along with an undefeated Notre Dame that played only 2 ranked teams?

 

[PhillyBuff]

No I don't want a playoff because it does not determine that years best team, just who got hot at the right time and got a good draw.

isn't that the case with a team's schedule? A team that has 2 or 3 ranked opponents all year just has to get hot at the right time and a favorable schedule.... Also.... home field can play a significant role in a team's record throughout the year.....

 

[Wyo Buff]

While I feel the DOJ haters would feel differently if it were a Republican in office, I digress.

I think a sixteen team playoff is a pipe dream, but eight is enough for me. It doesn't devalue the regular season whatsoever because each team better win every conference game or it might be on the outside looking in. Not a lot of two loss teams would be cracking that bracket. And if you give home-field advantage to seeds 1-4 in round one? Regular season matters even more.

I'm more of a bi-partisan Congress "hater". Congressional Hearings only lead to politically motivated actions which usually have little to do with efficiently addressing the underlying problem. To the extent that the DOJ acts as a political tool for either party, I cannot align with what they are doing. Like I said, just leave us alone.

 

[MtnBuff]

Strength of schedule?

The 1995 Nebraska team played 2 ranked teams and they are the champions.... The 1990 Colorado played 6 ranked teams and they are national champions....

while I appreciate your emphasis in the regular season, what you seek to achieve can be manipulated by strength of schedule.....

I believe your adherence to every game matters can be accomplished by having only conference champions participate in the tournament and allowing the "lesser conferences" in.

Just a thought... what do you do in the case of a 1 loss SEC team, Big 10, and Pac-12 team is left along with an undefeated Notre Dame that played only 2 ranked teams?

There is no answer that is going to be perfect. That said I would much rather call a team a champion that played consistently through a 13 games season then won a bowl against another team that played consistently throught a 13 game season than have some team with two losses or some team that got in because the qualified out of a perfect record in the MWC (Utah,TCU) or the WAC (Boise) go in and win a couple of playoff games and suddenly claim they are the champions.

You will have some questions after, the year BYU won the championship after playing a pathetic schedule over some one loss teams from major conferences. At the same time how many of the NCAA basketball champions from the past few years were the best team of that entire year, few if any in the past decade, they are the teams that got a good draw and got hot. To me the NCAA tourney is fun to watch but nothing special because I know that champion is not the best team, this year the final four included a couple of teams that based on the regular season didn't even belong in the discussion of top teams much less champion.

I know that everybody loves David vs. Goliath and we have a country that epitimizes the juicebox mentality of losing is okay because everyone gets another chance, that is what a tourney is all about. I much prefer a real champion and a tourney doesn't give it.

Strength of schedule can play a part but the tourney is more liable to SOS manipulation because it is all about "getting into the bracket" not proving you are the best. We have seen SEC teams in the BCS championship game with one loss ahead of schools from other conferences simply because people understand playing in the SEC means you play better teams.

Each way has its flaws, those who think a tourney will result in a system with less flaws are sadly mistaken.

And back to the original point of the thread, it is not the business of the federal government to tell college sports how they should run the system. The point about taxpayer dollars forgets that these are in the greatest part state funds. If individual states don't like how state funds are being used they have the authority to tell their universities to either leave the game or affiliate with other like minded universities and form a different system. What this is actually about is a bunch of crying, snivelling mid-level schools trying to steal money from the schools that are responsible for generating it. Nobody east of the Rocky Mountains gives two s***s about Boise, the TV ratings show that. Same can be said for most of the MWC and the WAC. Most of the country doesn't care about C-USA and the Sun Belt. The money from the broadcast rights is proportionate to the interest the public has in seeing these teams. It is no more "fair" for the PAC and the Big Ten to have to subsidize the mid-majors than it is for Kroger to have to subsidize some smaller grocery chain that is not as effective at attracting customers. If find it interesting how many of these schools doing the complaining come from states that scream about "socialist govenment programs." like Utah and Idaho.

 

[TDbuff]

There is no answer that is going to be perfect. That said I would much rather call a team a champion that played consistently through a 13 games season then won a bowl against another team that played consistently throught a 13 game season than have some team with two losses or some team that got in because the qualified out of a perfect record in the MWC (Utah,TCU) or the WAC (Boise) go in and win a couple of playoff games and suddenly claim they are the champions.

You will have some questions after, the year BYU won the championship after playing a pathetic schedule over some one loss teams from major conferences. At the same time how many of the NCAA basketball champions from the past few years were the best team of that entire year, few if any in the past decade, they are the teams that got a good draw and got hot. To me the NCAA tourney is fun to watch but nothing special because I know that champion is not the best team, this year the final four included a couple of teams that based on the regular season didn't even belong in the discussion of top teams much less champion.

I know that everybody loves David vs. Goliath and we have a country that epitimizes the juicebox mentality of losing is okay because everyone gets another chance, that is what a tourney is all about. I much prefer a real champion and a tourney doesn't give it.

A 68 team tournament does not equal a 16 team playoff, but you keep bringing it up. They play 3x as many games, and can lose a 3rd of them and still get in. Even with your extreme example of a 3 loss team maybe getting into a 16 team playoff, it's still not even in the neighborhood.

And it's not about David vs. Goliath, it's about finding the best team and the BCS doesn't do that most years. There's usually a handful of BCS teams(Goliaths) who have an argument at the end of every year. And it's because nobody plays the same schedule--SEC, ACC, Pac 12, Big 10--the BCS has to do frigging high level calculus to compare people's records, instead of just letting them settle it on the field.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Nobody knows who the "best team" is until is proven in the field of play.

You might have very strong opinions about who the best team is during the regular season, but that is just an opinion.

Crowning a champion based on "strength of schedule" etc is just a paper champion.

Give me a football playoff with only conference champions allowed in and you protect the regular season's importance.

If "non-BCS" conference teams don't belong in the picture then they need to be in a separate Division.

I hate that we have Division I-FBS AQ, Division I-FBS non-AQ, and then Division I-FCS; it's ****ing stupid!

Division I should be the "top level". simple as that, and if your school is in D-I then you should have a chance at becoming the champion before the season starts, as equal to anyone else in that Division.

Conference TV contracts have nothing to do with the post-season. The rich teams will still be the rich teams. 100,000 people will still go to see Michigan and Alabama play, but not Boise State. This isn't about economic equality, it is about letting the teams prove who is the best that season.

Can you honestly say that the players from Boise State and TCU and Utah and whoever the best "non-BCS" teams each season don't deserve a chance to play for the title because somehow during their 4-5 year career their program didn't get the invite to join a particular conference 10, 20, or even 100 years ago?

The fact of the matter is that it isn't "fair competition" on the field of play right now. Nobody with a brain is saying that the finances need to be equalized or revenue sharing or whatever else gets lumped into this argument like that.

 

[MtnBuff]

A 68 team tournament does not equal a 16 team playoff, but you keep bringing it up. They play 3x as many games, and can lose a 3rd of them and still get in. Even with your extreme example of a 3 loss team maybe getting into a 16 team playoff, it's still not even in the neighborhood.

And it's not about David vs. Goliath, it's about finding the best team and the BCS doesn't do that most years. There's usually a handful of BCS teams(Goliaths) who have an argument at the end of every year. And it's because nobody plays the same schedule--SEC, ACC, Pac 12, Big 10--the BCS has to do frigging high level calculus to compare people's records, instead of just letting them settle it on the field.

You cannot tell me in any way that 16 teams deserve a shot at the title each year, that is a joke. The BCS does a better job of finding the best team than a playoff would. By the way for simple math we have 119 teams that play BCS level football, 365 that play D-1 basketball, the proportion going to the tourney isn't that different. If you think that it would stay a 16 team bracket I have some land off the coast of Florida I would gladly sell you. As soon as you make a tourney or playoff the crying is going to begin to expand it. The Basketball tourney started at 12, then 16, then . . . . now its 68 and pressure is already on to expand it.

Why not just throw out the regular season and put eveyone in a bracket if a playoff is such a great idea. I am not interested in calling a 3 loss team the champion, I am also not interested in calling a 1 loss team from some minor conference the champion. If you are try to convince the college administrators to change it. If it was such a great idea I am sure that the college presidents would have already done it. Sorry but they aren't stupid, they know when they have a good thing and as long as a bunch of publicity seeking politicians don't screw it up they will keep having a good thing.

 

[TDbuff]

You cannot tell me in any way that 16 teams deserve a shot at the title each year, that is a joke. The BCS does a better job of finding the best team than a playoff would. By the way for simple math we have 119 teams that play BCS level football, 365 that play D-1 basketball, the proportion going to the tourney isn't that different. If you think that it would stay a 16 team bracket I have some land off the coast of Florida I would gladly sell you. As soon as you make a tourney or playoff the crying is going to begin to expand it. The Basketball tourney started at 12, then 16, then . . . . now its 68 and pressure is already on to expand it.

Why not just throw out the regular season and put eveyone in a bracket if a playoff is such a great idea. I am not interested in calling a 3 loss team the champion, I am also not interested in calling a 1 loss team from some minor conference the champion. If you are try to convince the college administrators to change it. If it was such a great idea I am sure that the college presidents would have already done it. Sorry but they aren't stupid, they know when they have a good thing and as long as a bunch of publicity seeking politicians don't screw it up they will keep having a good thing.

If you want to keep throwing the playoff idea out to the extremes, then you'll always seem more right. The fact is, most people have to look up some of the teams in the NCAA tournament because they don't know where they are located. That wouldn't be the case in a 16 team playoff. And for the record, I'd be happier with 8 teams, but the playoff idea outweighs me being picky.

And it would stay a 16 team bracket, because it's football, nobody's gonna let them play into March, there's physics involved that wouldn't allow a team to play 3-5 games in a week. Yet another reason you shouldn't compare the two.

You can prop up those non-bcs teams and 3 loss teams as an extreme example for not having a playoff, but think of the gauntlet those teams would have to go through to be national champions--win 4 games in a row against the best teams in the country, probably on the road. That might be a hot streak, but definitely not something you could dismiss as good luck. I guess you think CU shouldn't have gotten a shot at Miami in 2001, and Nebraska, the team we killed, deserved to be there? I'd rather a playoff process decide who's the best than public opinion and computers, otherwise, what's the use playing the games?

 

[TDbuff]

If you are try to convince the college administrators to change it. If it was such a great idea I am sure that the college presidents would have already done it. Sorry but they aren't stupid, they know when they have a good thing and as long as a bunch of publicity seeking politicians don't screw it up they will keep having a good thing.

Sorry, forgot about this part. College Administrators are not business people in most cases, they're academics. Someone tells them they're making a huge profit, which they are currently, I'm not arguing that, they say that's great. The less these people have to worry about the football team the better. All these guys know is how to avoid drama, and changing the system would be dramatic for them. After 70 years +(random estimate) of bowls, a lot of their golf buddies are gonna be butthurt if all of a sudden the Rose Bowl doesn't seem as important as it used to. What are they gonna tell the bowl hosts from Detroit after they gave them an all expenses paid trip to see the facilities last year? And you got 60 or so BCS level Presidents that you'd have to get on the same page to change from what's been the status quo for decades--not an easy task. Plus, you have conference commissioners (who most presidents who don't know sh*t about sports defer to) like Delaney from the Big 10, who doesn't want a playoff because he's afraid of how the declining talent in the Big 10 will look in a game that matters instead propping up the Rose Bowl as some kind of ceremonial Super Bowl. Add guys like Delaney to Don Beebe who will do anything Delaney and/or Texas tells him to, and that's why the BCS system continues. They know a playoff will make more money, but it's more important for these guys to keep themselves relevant and avoid drama than to make money.

 

[MtnBuff]

If you want to keep throwing the playoff idea out to the extremes, then you'll always seem more right. The fact is, most people have to look up some of the teams in the NCAA tournament because they don't know where they are located. That wouldn't be the case in a 16 team playoff. And for the record, I'd be happier with 8 teams, but the playoff idea outweighs me being picky.

And it would stay a 16 team bracket, because it's football, nobody's gonna let them play into March, there's physics involved that wouldn't allow a team to play 3-5 games in a week. Yet another reason you shouldn't compare the two.

You can prop up those non-bcs teams and 3 loss teams as an extreme example for not having a playoff, but think of the gauntlet those teams would have to go through to be national champions--win 4 games in a row against the best teams in the country, probably on the road. That might be a hot streak, but definitely not something you could dismiss as good luck. I guess you think CU shouldn't have gotten a shot at Miami in 2001, and Nebraska, the team we killed, deserved to be there? I'd rather a playoff process decide who's the best than public opinion and computers, otherwise, what's the use playing the games?

Going to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that a four game run makes you a champion. For every Nebraska in 2001 you can quote I can quote multiple examples in basketball and the pros of the best team losing because of one game against somebody who did not have the body of work.

Bottom line is that the choice belongs to the member institutions and they have decided not to have a playoff, you can speculate all you want on who would have done this and who would have done that, this is part of what makes college football exciting and growing but I don't see a playoff making it a better game, neither do the institutions and it is their game. If you don't like it put your time and money into something else.

 

[Hank]

I would have enjoyed a 16 team playoff for the 94-95 season.

 

[DBT]

The DOJ letter to the NCAA was strange. It was a strange tack for them to take and appears to be nothing more than sabre rattling. I think they are a long way, if ever, from actually filing any kind of suit.

 

[BlackNGold]

No I don't want a playoff because it does not determine that years best team, just who got hot at the right time and got a good draw.

No system is perfect but to me a playoff is much less desirable than a system where every game matters for teams that want to win the championship. As I stated earlier I have no problem with a plus one. Beyond that everything gets watered down. Once you go eight teams then teams number 9 and 10 whine until you expand to 12 or 16 and you seat every conference champion plus some wildcards. Then the arguments start and you go to 24 or 32.

No thanks, I'll stay with the current system as it is. I don't care to see some 3 loss team get hot and suddenly they are the "champion."

I agree with this. Was UConn the best college basketball team in America last year? Well the playoff says they were even though they were only 500 in the conference. Playoffs are interesting and fun to watch but they have their own flaws.

 

[DBT]

I agree with this. Was UConn the best college basketball team in America last year? Well the playoff says they were even though they were only 500 in the conference. Playoffs are interesting and fun to watch but they have their own flaws.

In a sense, isn't the regular season somewhat of a playoff? I could see an "and one" deal with a final "championship game" after the bowl games. I just wish the bowl games weren't spread out like they are. I miss the big finish on New Years day.

 

[TDbuff]

Going to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that a four game run makes you a champion. For every Nebraska in 2001 you can quote I can quote multiple examples in basketball and the pros of the best team losing because of one game against somebody who did not have the body of work.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I continue to give examples of why you can't compare basketball to football, but you continue to use it as a valid comparison. I've seen great teams in the cherished NCAA regular football season lose to lesser teams as well. Like I said, that's why they play the games.

 

[MtnBuff]

In a sense, isn't the regular season somewhat of a playoff? I could see an "and one" deal with a final "championship game" after the bowl games. I just wish the bowl games weren't spread out like they are. I miss the big finish on New Years day.

This is true as well. New years day used to be special. Wake up and shake off the hangover, go to mass, come home, eat a good breakfast and settle into watching nonstop football the entire day. Now is just seems to drag out, a playoff would make that worse as well.

 

[TDbuff]

This is true as well. New years day used to be special. Wake up and shake off the hangover, go to mass, come home, eat a good breakfast and settle into watching nonstop football the entire day. Now is just seems to drag out, a playoff would make that worse as well.

What? Yeah, cause that month of December without college football is awesome. Any proposed playoff would most likely take place during the time the other football college football playoffs are happening, with maybe a delay for the championship. And you might have teams playing at their actual ability level, instead of giving everybody a month+ to prepare for one game that doesn't matter. And if everyone is so longing for exhibition games in January, I'm sure sponsors will line up to provide bowl games outside a playoff so everyone can feel warm and fuzzy with the tradition of the Cotton Bowl that's not in the Cotton Bowl, and might become part of the BCS rotation because the Fiesta Bowl is a bunch of crooks.

 

[MtnBuff]

What? Yeah, cause that month of December without college football is awesome. Any proposed playoff would most likely take place during the time the other football college football playoffs are happening, with maybe a delay for the championship. And you might have teams playing at their actual ability level, instead of giving everybody a month+ to prepare for one game that doesn't matter. And if everyone is so longing for exhibition games in January, I'm sure sponsors will line up to provide bowl games outside a playoff so everyone can feel warm and fuzzy with the tradition of the Cotton Bowl that's not in the Cotton Bowl, and might become part of the BCS rotation because the Fiesta Bowl is a bunch of crooks.

If a playoff is such a no brainer, why don't we already have one? Easy, because the people in charge have looked at the value of the regular season interest versus the value of a playoff and determined that the public is more interested in the system as it stands as determined by total revenues. Those bowl games that you are so quick to dismiss are generating huge ratings and massive payoffs to the NCAA and its schools. Yes the Fiesta bowl bunch is corrupt but playoffs solve all that, just ask Jerry Jones and people who went to Dallas for the SuperBowl and didn't get in or did get in and got to look at a post all game.

College football is great as it is. Could some minor things be improved, of course. Require that to play in the NC game you have to win your conference, that will solve the issue you had with Nebraska in 2001. Don't think the grass is greener and destroy it for some stupid playoff just so you can repeat the errors of the other sports and I am not just talking basketball. I am also talking NBA in which regular season games are a joke, NHL in which nobody cares about the regular season enough to turn on a TV, NFL in which teams throw regular season games for draft position or playoff teams take weeks off to rest. No thanks, I'll take my August through January of suspense and interest and you can have your four weeks of luck and second chance losers.

 

[TDbuff]

If a playoff is such a no brainer, why don't we already have one? Easy, because the people in charge have looked at the value of the regular season interest versus the value of a playoff and determined that the public is more interested in the system as it stands as determined by total revenues. Those bowl games that you are so quick to dismiss are generating huge ratings and massive payoffs to the NCAA and its schools. Yes the Fiesta bowl bunch is corrupt but playoffs solve all that, just ask Jerry Jones and people who went to Dallas for the SuperBowl and didn't get in or did get in and got to look at a post all game.

College football is great as it is. Could some minor things be improved, of course. Require that to play in the NC game you have to win your conference, that will solve the issue you had with Nebraska in 2001. Don't think the grass is greener and destroy it for some stupid playoff just so you can repeat the errors of the other sports and I am not just talking basketball. I am also talking NBA in which regular season games are a joke, NHL in which nobody cares about the regular season enough to turn on a TV, NFL in which teams throw regular season games for draft position or playoff teams take weeks off to rest. No thanks, I'll take my August through January of suspense and interest and you can have your four weeks of luck and second chance losers.

Apparently, this is like arguing a religion with you. There's no point.

 

[MtnBuff]

Apparently, this is like arguing a religion with you. There's no point.

I feel that same way with the playoff proponents, doesn't matter if something is working, fit it anyways to make it different.

I have yet to hear how a playoff would make anything better than what we have. A better way of picking a champion? No. A more enjoyable football season? No. A truer judge of the best team? Definately not. More money for those that generate the money? No

About the only argument is that it is "fairer" to those teams that don't generate enough interest to belong on top. Everyone can catch a hot streak and be a winner, kind of like Charlie Sheen thinking.

The argument that "everyone else is doing it" reminds me of a teenager trying to convince a parent to let him do something he knows he shouldn't but still wants to. I don't want to ruin a great college season for the sake of a few weeks of a meaningless playoff.

 

[DBT]

What? Yeah, cause that month of December without college football is awesome.

So, how many months are there in December?

 

[TDbuff]

I feel that same way with the playoff proponents, doesn't matter if something is working, fit it anyways to make it different.

I have yet to hear how a playoff would make anything better than what we have. A better way of picking a champion? No. A more enjoyable football season? No. A truer judge of the best team? Definately not. More money for those that generate the money? No

About the only argument is that it is "fairer" to those teams that don't generate enough interest to belong on top. Everyone can catch a hot streak and be a winner, kind of like Charlie Sheen thinking.

The argument that "everyone else is doing it" reminds me of a teenager trying to convince a parent to let him do something he knows he shouldn't but still wants to. I don't want to ruin a great college season for the sake of a few weeks of a meaningless playoff.

I made those arguments, you just didn't want to read them or respond to them. The BCS isn't working, unless you only remember last year when they managed to get 2 undefeated teams from a power conferences in the same season, which rarely happens. Meanwhile, TCU, undefeated, is beating the Big 10 Champ in the Rose Bowl and gets a pat on the back for their efforts. Then we wait a month and half for Auburn & Oregon to play like **** for the first half while they shake off the rust.

And the paranoia over mid-majors getting a place at the table is unwarranted. I could give a **** about TCU, Boise, Notre Dame , whoever, a playoff will rule those posers out pretty quick and they'll wish for the day when they could get a Fiesta Bowl bid and only had to argue with people like you.

 

[TDbuff]

So, how many months are there in December?

Just one. "month" was added for emphasis, and I work for the Department of Redundancy Department. We're arguing here, I'm trying to be dramatic.

 

[MtnBuff]

This guy puts it better than I could and saves me the typing (not that that has ever stopped me before.)

http://www.baldwincountynow.com/articles/2011/05/07/sports/doc4d95ffdc1f544822075859.txt

I think you fall under the "feel good squishy" description he gives.

If you had a 16 team playoff how are you going to find 16 deserving teams. As he states if you go with conference champs last year you get a UConn with 3 losses and a pathetic schedule and the champs of the MAC and the Sun Belt. Go with the rankings in a system like the BCS uses and you get a #9 Michigan State and a Nebraska (your favorite whipping boy for not deserving in) who finished #14. Cincinnati who played a pathetic Big East schedule gets in at #12, four of the teams have 3 loses but that's okay if they win out they are the best for that year, doesn't matter what happened for 13 weeks in the regular season.

No way in the world does a team not finishing in the top 10 even deserve mention for the championship but you would put them four games away. In an 8 team playoff a team not in the top 6 would be 3 games away, another joke. And based on the amount of whining and crying we are seeing for a playoff now, it would be a matter of minutes before we heard how unfair it was that "X" team got left out and how one more round would only make it better until we end up with juicebox heaven and trophies for everyone like in basketball.

I

 

[TDbuff]

This guy puts it better than I could and saves me the typing (not that that has ever stopped me before.)

http://www.baldwincountynow.com/articles/2011/05/07/sports/doc4d95ffdc1f544822075859.txt

I think you fall under the "feel good squishy" description he gives.

If you had a 16 team playoff how are you going to find 16 deserving teams. As he states if you go with conference champs last year you get a UConn with 3 losses and a pathetic schedule and the champs of the MAC and the Sun Belt. Go with the rankings in a system like the BCS uses and you get a #9 Michigan State and a Nebraska (your favorite whipping boy for not deserving in) who finished #14. Cincinnati who played a pathetic Big East schedule gets in at #12, four of the teams have 3 loses but that's okay if they win out they are the best for that year, doesn't matter what happened for 13 weeks in the regular season.

No way in the world does a team not finishing in the top 10 even deserve mention for the championship but you would put them four games away. In an 8 team playoff a team not in the top 6 would be 3 games away, another joke. And based on the amount of whining and crying we are seeing for a playoff now, it would be a matter of minutes before we heard how unfair it was that "X" team got left out and how one more round would only make it better until we end up with juicebox heaven and trophies for everyone like in basketball.

I

Thanks for linking a rinky-dink newspaper website on the gulfcoast of Alabama. I know where you're coming from now. Noone's changing your mind, got it.

 

[MtnBuff]

Thanks for linking a rinky-dink newspaper website on the gulfcoast of Alabama. I know where you're coming from now. Noone's changing your mind, got it.

And your mind is so wide open. I haven't seen a single thing from you that is a legit reason to change other than that you want a playoff because every other sport does it. It may be a small paper but it is well stated and thus the link. I guess I am just supposed to see things your way because you are so damn special. Give me a legit reason to change my mind and I will, come at me with the weak stuff you have and I have no reason to change my mind. Enjoy the orange slices.

 

[TDbuff]

And your mind is so wide open. I haven't seen a single thing from you that is a legit reason to change other than that you want a playoff because every other sport does it. It may be a small paper but it is well stated and thus the link. I guess I am just supposed to see things your way because you are so damn special. Give me a legit reason to change my mind and I will, come at me with the weak stuff you have and I have no reason to change my mind. Enjoy the orange slices.

You're basically trolling at this point, but I'll bite. I wasn't challenging your view on the world, I live in Mississippi. I know that SEC people love the BCS, because they keep winning it, and they want the easiest path possible to the championship game, which lately means they only have to win the SEC champsionship game. They don't want anyone to challenge them. That's why they play a weak out of conference schedule and then tell everyone how tough the SEC is. It is the best conference on paper, but those teams rarely leave the southeast to prove it. Georgia's trip to CU last year made everyone act like they were leaving the country. Florida doesn't even leave their state to play out of conference games, unless it's the Citadel.

And I don't mention other sports' playoffs, you do. And then when I say there is no comparison, you ignore it, and keep comparing them.

I'm just looking for the best team, for you, the best team is on paper or determined by public perception. I'd rather they settle it on the field. Here's what the BCS has given us in recent years:

2003 LSU 21, Oklahoma 14, USC wins the AP championship

2004 Oklahoma 19, USC 55--Auburn, undefeated, watches.

2006 Florida 41, Ohio State 14--and it coulda been Michigan too, which may have been worse, while stacked LSU and USC teams finish 3rd and 4th respectively.

2007 LSU 38, Ohio State 14, again. LSU wins the BCS championship with 2 losses, 4 teams sit behind them in the poll with also 2 losses. Kansas sits behind them all with 1 loss.

As I mentioned before, 2010, TCU is undefeated, beating Wisconsin, on the field, and they have no way to prove it against Oregon & Auburn, while those two pillow fight in the first half because it's been so long since they actually played a game.

 

[MtnBuff]

You're basically trolling at this point, but I'll bite. I wasn't challenging your view on the world, I live in Mississippi. I know that SEC people love the BCS, because they keep winning it, and they want the easiest path possible to the championship game, which lately means they only have to win the SEC champsionship game. They don't want anyone to challenge them. That's why they play a weak out of conference schedule and then tell everyone how tough the SEC is. It is the best conference on paper, but those teams rarely leave the southeast to prove it. Georgia's trip to CU last year made everyone act like they were leaving the country. Florida doesn't even leave their state to play out of conference games, unless it's the Citadel.

And I don't mention other sports' playoffs, you do. And then when I say there is no comparison, you ignore it, and keep comparing them.

I'm just looking for the best team, for you, the best team is on paper or determined by public perception. I'd rather they settle it on the field. Here's what the BCS has given us in recent years:

2003 LSU 21, Oklahoma 14, USC wins the AP championship

2004 Oklahoma 19, USC 55--Auburn, undefeated, watches.

2006 Florida 41, Ohio State 14--and it coulda been Michigan too, which may have been worse, while stacked LSU and USC teams finish 3rd and 4th respectively.

2007 LSU 38, Ohio State 14, again. LSU wins the BCS championship with 2 losses, 4 teams sit behind them in the poll with also 2 losses. Kansas sits behind them all with 1 loss.

As I mentioned before, 2010, TCU is undefeated, beating Wisconsin, on the field, and they have no way to prove it against Oregon & Auburn, while those two pillow fight in the first half because it's been so long since they actually played a game.

To start with let's just look at last year. You mention TCU sitting, I have no problem with that. An undefeated season against their schedule doesn't deserve a trip to the championship game. Most of the rest you mentioned also prove my point. All the coulda woulda shouldas come down to who was best that entire season. Do they sometimes get it wrong, certainly I will give you that but you talk about a 16 team playoff. Any means you come up with for a 16 team bracket or even an 8 team bracket I will show you teams that are included that based on the entire season of work do not deserve to be anywhere near the trophy. All the same in a tourney they get hot, catch a good draw and all the sudden they are the best team in college football. I simply don't buy it and until I am shown why the 15th best team over the year deserves to get a shot at the title I won't buy it.

I don't like the SEC, I don't like how they run their programs and how they act smug when they win. It is hard to argue however with any sense of logic that a team that wins the SEC is not one of the best teams in the country. Why should they have to turn around a play their way into a championship game against some team that gets into the playoff with three losses or with an undefeated record against the mighty MWC or WAC.

The football championship is the only championship that is truly a measure of a season, not just of how a team finishes. I happen to enjoy that, so do millions of others because attendance and TV ratings have never been better. There is a reason that the PAC12 just got the TV contract they did, why the Big 10 and the SEC have the contracts they do. People enjoy watching a season of games that mean something other than will this team be a 1 seed or a 4 seed. As DBT stated the entire season is a playoff, lose and it usually means you are out, every game matters. Not lose and you get a second or third chance that a playoff gives. As I stated earlier I wouldn't be opposed to a plus one. Do that and every team you mention as being left out has a shot.

Unless you put every team into the bracket you will always have someone complaining that they didn't get a fair shot, put every team into the bracket and teams complain that they got a bad draw. No system will be free of discussion, that is what sports fans do. The winners gloat and the losers look for excuses (like we would have won a playoff) but a playoff wouldn't make the final outcome better, only different and in my mind less valid.

 

[Dark Bohner]

Thanks for linking a rinky-dink newspaper website on the gulfcoast of Alabama. I know where you're coming from now. Noone's changing your mind, got it.

So MtnBuff doesn't agree with you. So what? Doesn't mean you need to insult his arguments and call him a troll. You both feel passionate about your stance, and by just yelling louder and more insultingly doesn't make you right all of the sudden. I happen to agree with him and not you. So now it is two against one, so that makes us right doesn't it? Maybe, but I'm not going to keep hammering at you because I think it will make my argument more valid. Personally I'll continue enjoying college football as it is, and if it is changed I hope it works.