quote:
Playoffs are best, then the old pre-bcs bowl system would be much better than the garbage we have now.

I believe anyone who has serioulsy benn following college football for any lenght of time now understands that it is virtually imposible to select just 2 worthy teams at the end of the year to play for a mnc. It is just impossible so why try in the abscence of playoffs. The entire bowl slate has been downgraded because of the bcs. I wish we could just scrap it, but sadly I don't see it happening.

It depends on one's point of view. I prefer the current system to the old system. One reason: LSU would never have been national champ in 2003 or 2007 under the old system. In 2003, USC would have played Michigan and been declared national champ. In 2007, the national champion would have been the winner of the Rose Bowl, either Ohio State or USC. LSU is once again on the outside looking in. The old system would favor USC virtually every year with the current situation. USC would have been NC in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 because they would never have played LSU or OU in 2003. The would have won in 2004 anyway, they would have won in 2005 because they would not have played Texas, they probably would have one in 2007 because the probably would have beaten Ohio State, and by virtue of beating the no. 1 team, they would have been awarded the NC over any other 2 loss team. Is this really the system that anybody would want (other than USC fans), if we abandoned the current BCS system without a playoff?

I should also add that Florida would have had a decent shot at the NC in 2006, Ohio State would probably have lost to a 2 loss USC, and Florida would have won the Sugar. Of course LSU doesn't get into Sugar in 2006. But then again, if USC beat Ohio State and Michigan wins the Fiesta or whatever, Michigan probably gets the nod over Florida, unless the Sugar could have gotten Michigan (a pretty decent possibility).

This post was edited on 7/16/08 at 10:37 am