re: For or Opossed to BCS playoff?

quote:

---

we are moving from the BCS

---

Actually, we aren't. Instead of a 2-team BCS playoff, we are now going to have a 4-team BCS playoff.

Some people will go ape nuts and be so happy that we're changing, when in reality this is not a huge change from what we currently have....just two extra "semifinal" games.

quote:

---

? Or last year to have Bama sit at home while Oregon or Clemson in the playoff?

---

It would be stupid if they had more than 4 teams and only conference champs, but if it was only 4 teams having all 4 as conference champs is not a bad idea.

Yes, last year would have lame having Wisconsin in and Bama out, but if you look at the pervious 13 years of the BCS, the only other team that would have been left out that you could argue got hosed was OU in 2003. There are plenty of years were the diffence between 4 and 5 was marginal.

As for Oregon last year, keeping them out and Stanford in sends a message that big OOC games should be avoided. Stay home and play Portland college for the blind instead of going to Dallas to play LSU and Oregon would have been in.

Overall, I love the 4 team playoff, I don't think it needs to be any bigger.

Honestly, after last year, all I care about is the SEC TITLE. it's the only title won on the field. BCS is nothing but a popularity contest. No way Oklahoma or Texus gets left out if they had been in OKlahoma State's position. No. Way

quote:

---

I think it should be conference champions only. This year, that would have put LSU (who beat Bama), Oregon (who beat Stanford), OK State, Boise or Wisconsin in the playoff. While Bama and Stanford would have had better records, they would have been eliminated through conference play. I don't like the idea of more than one team from a conference in the playoff if there are going to be only four spots. (NOTE: I didn't think two teams from the same conference should have been in the BCSCG; Bama would have brought the conference only $500K less by playing in any other BCS game.)

---

I'm with you. If you can't win your conference , you shouldn't be able to win a national title.
You do run into problems with easier conference getting a shot while playing no one. If a Boise state is gonna get in with an11-1 it would suck if LSU got left out with an11-1 record while playing a far harder schedule.

I'm for traditional tie ins for major bowls on New Years Day, revote, plus 1 game a week later. Use the AP poll, persuade FWAA to participate, and a selection committee that's paid a substantial sum to actually review games and make a pick. Never happen but that's what I want.
P.S. the coaches poll needs to die...immediately.

quote:

---

P.S. the coaches poll needs to die...immediately.

---

WITHOUT A DOUBT. SPOT ON. coaches poll at ignorant because coaches don't watch the games on Saturday and certain conference coaches can vote a team low just to get their team in. Like Saban did this year. It makes me sick the coaches poll influences the BCS.

quote:

---

Honestly, after last year, all I care about is the SEC TITLE. it's the only title won on the field. BCS is nothing but a popularity contest. No way Oklahoma or Texus gets left out if they had been in OKlahoma State's position. No. Way

---

True about OK or Texas not getting left out last year. But I'm the opposite. After last year, I don't care at all about the SEC title. LSU won the SEC last year but to me, and to most fans I know, the season ended with a feeling of disappointment. In seasons where the BCS is possible, like last year, the SEC is just another roadblock to the ultimate goal.

quote:

---

Also of you are a poll that influences BCS rankings , you're formula needs to not be a secret. What pisses me off is one year the criteria is who have you beaten, the next year it's who you lost to then they get real ignorant like last year with an EYEBALL TEST. There needs to be a set criteria on how the BCS rankings are formed and not sow secret formula shite

---

+1000000

quote:

---

What I want to know is what happens to Notre Dame if only conf. champs get to be in the champ game?

---

That's a good question Otto. If a playoff was limited to conference champs only I would expect the Irish to petition the Big 10 for admission for their entire sports program.

But as I said earlier, limiting participation to conference champs is not a great idea.

quote:

---

and to most fans I know, the season ended with a feeling of disappointment.

---

A bowl loss is always disappointing, a major bowl worse, BCS CG more so. Winning the conference is the one thing not affected by outside opinion. Has always been true, always will be (hopefully they will do away with BCS ranking as a tie-breaker for ATL invite, it's a bad idea, imo). In 1988 AU got Sugar Bowl invite due to AP rank. LSU won H2H. But both are considered co-champs equally, as they should be.