BCS v. Playoff

anything more than 4 teams is too many imho. I might could get on board with a 6 team playoff is the top 2 seeds get byes. To keep the sanctity of the regular season, there has to be a huge advantage to going undefeated/ having the best regular season. I'm content with the BCS though. It is infinitely better than what came before it.

hmmmm....are these guys running for office?

for the last ten years at least, we have heard nothing but 'the bcs is the debil we must have a playoff' out of the majority of these media hacks.

the cliches really fly from the PRO playoff group. my favorite is 'decide it on the field'.

does the BCS selection process have some problems, sure. but each season it has put two teams ON THE FIELD and let them play for the title. it is much better than the old days when bowl invites were handed out to notre dame in september and everyone else in october.

but just like most of the media glossed over the fact that in 2003 it was really oklahoma that screwed usc out of a chance to play LSU for the title, and that this year it was ohio state whose qualifications for the game were dubious, no one wants to admit that things are pretty good.

how many NFL games mattered in week 17 last season? compare that to the final week of the college football season. i know that i was driving back from atlanta flipping threw staticy AM radio stations trying to pick up the west virginia and oklahoma games.


college football is, bar none, the greatest sport in the nation.

although, i have seen some of these particular guys say they don't have to have a playoff before, i think this is going to be the begining of the media 'revising its policy' ha ha ha.

now, i can't say for sure though, are they doing this just to stir up controversy and sway all the lemmings that have followed them with the idea that it's a moral imperative to have a playoff? or have the actually come to their senses?

quote:

---

1.) Dec. 22, 2008 - Sugar Bowl - #1 vs. #8.
2.) Dec. 22, 2008 - Rose Bowl - #2 vs. #7.
3.) Dec. 23, 2008 - Fiesta Bowl - #3 vs. #6.
4.) Dec. 23, 2008 - Orange Bowl - #4 vs. #5.
5.) Dec. 29, 2008 - Sugar Bowl - Winners of games 1 & 4.
6.) Dec. 30, 2008 - Fiesta Bowl - Winners of games 2 & 3.
7.) Jan. 7, 2009 - BCS National Championship Game (Pasadena)- Winners of games 5 & 6.

---

Where are these games to be played? Do you expect a fanbase to travel to 3 bowl games after possibly a conference championship game? And right around Christmas?


There are quite a few logistical problems with your proposal. Not to mention fairness. You cannot convince me that a 3-loss 8 seed should get to play an undefeated 1 seed with the same chance to advance. That would kill the regular season.

another thing to consider is that college football does not have a 'representative schedule' because the sport really doesn't lend itself to one.

in the NFL, you only have 32 teams. each team plays the other teams in its division. each division plays common opponents from another division. the entire schedule is dictated by the league...and it should be noted that they intentionally try to give some teams easier schedules.

the REALITY of the situation is that while 4, 8, or 16 team playoffs may have advantages, they also have enough drawbacks to where you cannot say they are significantly BETTER.

at that point, i think the intrisic value of the history and tradition of college football (which i think is important to start with) should become the deciding factor.

quote:

---

Fairness? - elimination of controversy - consider LSU, USC, Georgia, Oklahoma situations.

---

are rules changed in midstream? i don't think so. so what is 'unfair' about the BCS, the rules of which are set forth before the season and agreed to by every BCS conference and member institution?

yes, there are some flaws in polling - mainly a predetermined order and movement based primarily on losing - but those same flaws are going to exist whether it's a two-team playoff system, a four-team playoff system, an eight team playoff system, etc.

do you think there would be no controversy involving seeding in an eight team playoff? what about uga this year? in or out of an 8 tema playoff, don't you think some yahoo would have said 'well, they can't even win their own division'. someone will want to put a rule in one year that you can't have three teams from a conference, but the next a league will clearly have 3 of the top 5 or 6 clubs.

we have a two-team playoff now.

increasing the size of said playoff is NOT a panacea.

besides, who says a little controversy is a 'bad' thing?

quote:

---

do you think there would be no controversy involving seeding in an eight team playoff?

---

of course there would be, there is gripping about teams being left out of the NCAA tourney and that's 65 teams. But that alone is not good enough reason to not have a PO of some kind. The further away from #1 you get the weaker your argument. The teams at #5 and #9 typically have 2 or 3 losses or didn't win their conference.

quote:

---

increasing the size of said playoff is NOT a panacea.
besides, who says a little controversy is a 'bad' thing?

---

Its not a panacea, but 4 teams would be better than 2 even though 2 is better than 8.

LINK

the 3 part analysis is pretty extensive

...if only the author had remembered to keep updating, especially after this CFB season and the superbowl

quote:

---

I don't think you can do it with less then 8

---

then playoffs should never occur

8 teams never have proven themselves worthy of a shot at the title

quote:

---

Agreed, but the main controversy has never fallen outside of the top 8:

---

well no shite

there are rarely 4 teams who have a legit claim to a title shot...there might not have been a season when 4 teams could make this claim except maybe 2004