re: For those BCS lovers who think...

quote:

---

this is what makes me nervous about a playoff system. It would de-value the regular season, which is the most amazing in all of sports IMO FWIW

---

I disagree. If the 16 team playoff includes 12 conference winners and 4 at large teams, you can't just assume that you will win your conference championship game. Thus you need as many wins as possible (if only for seeding).

And to those that say the 6 non-BCS champs don't deserve a spot, well you are probably right. But this makes sure everyone gets a shot, and it does provide the highest seeds with the equivalent of a bye (not so much the Mountain West and WAC, but the others).

Come on, people! Think about the awesome match ups with everything on the line!

Season would maintain relevance. Higher rank would guarantee home games. And we would need to maintain a high rank to get an at large bid this year which would not happen if we lost to ole miss and arky. What is difficult to understand about this?

quote:

---

The season would be way more exciting because we control our own destiny. Instead of having to root against TCU, Boise, Oregon, and Auburn, we could relentlessly cheer for the Tigers alone with confidence that WE CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY..

I cannot comprehend the lack of logic that goes into the BCS System, and I hope a playoff is put in play in the near future, regardless of the greedy bastards who are trying to prevent it.

---

I want a playoff as well, but you could also end up in the same position at #9 needing the teams above you to slip. A playoff does not rule out the scenario you are predicting, but it does make the chances the team involved would be a contender less likely.

All formats have their issues, I mean there is a damn entire 4 hour show devoted to "bubble" teams and "the first one's out" for a 65 man tourney. It doesn't stop.. it just changes.

quote:

---

yeah because we have no other examples to draw conclusions from right. OHHHH wait yeah we do, and Indy proved all this true just last year.

---

Ummm, are you trying to compare college to the NFL? If you can't see the fault in doing this then I don't even want to waste my time arguing.

quote:

---

I think if there was a playoff we trade NC's 06 for 07

---

If there was a playoff, we are back to back NC in 2006 & 2007!

Also, the next 2 weeks wouldn't be irrelevant! If LSU lost next 2 games, they'd miss the playoffs!

quote:

---

There is no basis for an arguement against a playoff....show me one example of another sport that doesn't use a playoff to determine the champion. If the BCS is a sound and solid way to crown a champion why wouldn't lower divisions of cfb and the NFL adopt the system?

---

I'm ambivalent about it, since I enjoy the chaos and I dont need college football to be the same as NFL. The BCS, in almost every case, gets it right. The best teams are the champs.

And playoffs dont necessarily crown the best team either. They reward the team that gets hot at the end of a season. Perfect example is 2007 (or was it 2008?) when the Patriots finished 18-1 and are a footnote in history, while the Giants finished 14-5 and somehow are the champs. The Pats beat the Giants the last game of the season and had way more wins. All that was rendered meaningless bc the Giants got hot in the playoffs and won a rematch. Logically, the Pats shouldnt have even had to beat the Giants a second time.

In a 4 team playoff, there would be chaos every time there are 2, 3, or 5 or more deserving teams. In 2005, why would any team other than Texas and USC be in the championship hunt at the end? In 2004, there were 3 unbeatens. Adding an undeserving 4th team to the mix is nonsensical.

In an 8 team playoff with the conference champs, this year we'd have undeserving teams from Big East and ACC in the mix, while Oregon and AU get dick for finishing undefeated. And there may be numerous 1-loss teams with stronger claims to a playoff spot. TCU and Boise would get the 2 at large bids, and LSU would probably be locked out.

There are issues with every format, so I will just enjoy whichever we have.

quote:

---

And playoffs dont necessarily crown the best team either. They reward the team that gets hot at the end of a season. Perfect example is 2007 (or was it 2008?) when the Patriots finished 18-1 and are a footnote in history, while the Giants finished 14-5 and somehow are the champs. The Pats beat the Giants the last game of the season and had way more wins. All that was rendered meaningless bc the Giants got hot in the playoffs and won a rematch. Logically, the Pats shouldnt have even had to beat the Giants a second time.

---

If more teams have a chance of winning a title wouldn't that make cfb even more intriquing? If your team loses a game or 2 they still are playing for the opportunity to make the playoffs....which to me would make the season even better. Not to mention the excitement of seeing USC come to Tiger stadium in mid december for the right to play in the title game.

I don't think anyone devalues the giants superbowl win b/c it was played on the field.

With the current format of bowls I believe its unfair to the fans and players to wait anywhere b/w 4-6 weeks to play after the final regular season game. There is no telling how a team will play with that kind of layoff. Some seem to play well (LSU) and others do not. Also 20 years ago there wasn't half as many bowls as there is today. A team loses 3 or 4 games and is still playiong for the opportunity to play in a bowl game. Playing at neutral sites is boring and a lot of true fans aren't able to travel to these games.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone devalues the giants superbowl win b/c it was played on the field.

---

No they won, but IMO the Pats were the best team that year.

quote:

---

this is what makes me nervous about a playoff system. It would de-value the regular season

---

No it wouldn't, unless you place no value in hosting a first round playoff game on the higher seeded home field.