Any BCS supporters wanna take a stab at this one?

[Bucs90]

Only in the BCS can a team be headed to the conference championship game, and be disappointed, as OU is now. And BC.

In a playoff with 6 BCS conference autobids and 2 at large teams, the following teams would still have a possibility of winning a national championship by auto bid or at large: KU, Mizzou, OU, WVU, Cincy, OSU, LSU, UT, UGA, BC, UVA, VT, Oregon, ASU, Hawaii.

But, in the BCS system, only 5 or 6 of those teams have a legitimate chance: Mizzou, KU, WVU, OSU, LSU, and maybe ASU.

Now, BCS supporters, tell me again how a playoff would lessen the regular season? They way I see it, the more teams with NC hopes the more exciting the season is. Under a playoff, BC and OU wouldn't be disappointed about "only" making it to the CCG.

[JamesHowell]

A lot more than that - Texas, USC, UConn should on the list as well.

[EvilVodka]

1) Only in the BCS can a team be headed to the conference championship game, and be disappointed, as OU is now. And BC.

2) In a playoff with 6 BCS conference autobids and 2 at large teams, the following teams would still have a possibility of winning a national championship by auto bid or at large: KU, Mizzou, OU, WVU, Cincy, OSU, LSU, UT, UGA, BC, UVA, VT, Oregon, ASU, Hawaii.

3) But, in the BCS system, only 5 or 6 of those teams have a legitimate chance: Mizzou, KU, WVU, OSU, LSU, and maybe ASU.

4) Now, BCS supporters, tell me again how a playoff would lessen the regular season? They way I see it, the more teams with NC hopes the more exciting the season is. Under a playoff, BC and OU wouldn't be disappointed about "only" making it to the CCG.

1) I don't think Boston College is disappointed about headed to the ACC Championship...and Oklahoma certainly doesn't have the Big XII South wrapped up yet...if these teams are disappointed about having to play in a conference championship game, that's pretty sorry...

If LSU lost to Arkansas on Friday...I'd be a little disappointed, but I'd still be pumped up about winning the SEC...winning the SEC is first and foremost in my mind, its a must

2) Cincinnati, Oregon, and Oklahoma all just lost...I think it would cheapen the playoff field if these teams got in...I don't see how having them in a playoff makes the playoff more valid

3) These teams have the best resumes...if we had a limited playoff (4 team playoff), Ohio State would probably be in, Kansas/Mizzou would have to win their conf. championship to be in, and West Virginia would have a chance to get in...this is what I would prefer as far as playoffs...

4) The more teams that have national title chances can lessen the regular season...what's the significance of Oregon, Oklahoma, and Cincinnati losing this weekend if they're still alive?

[CJHawkeyes]

I'll respond to #4. Seeding and homefield advantage. Notwithstanding the issues some have with my format, Oregon's loss cost the Ducks a top two seed and homefield throughout the playoffs. Oklahoma's lost cost the Sooners at least a top four seed and even assuming they beat the Cowboys, they are on the bubble for the last wildcard berth. Cincinnati is one 33 teams still mathematically alive under my format, but the Bearcats truly needed to win yesterday as they need about 17 teams to lose to get in.

Anyway, you are one the better advocates for a smaller playoff. I could probably be statisfied with a four team playoff based on objective rules like those that I favor.

[EvilVodka]

I'll respond to #4. Seeding and homefield advantage. Notwithstanding the issues some have with my format, Oregon's loss cost the Ducks a top two seed and homefield throughout the playoffs. Oklahoma's lost cost the Sooners at least a top four seed and even assuming they beat the Cowboys, they are on the bubble for the last wildcard berth. Cincinnati is one 33 teams still mathematically alive under my format, but the Bearcats truly needed to win yesterday as they need about 17 teams to lose to get in.

Anyway, you are one the better advocates for a smaller playoff. I could probably be statisfied with a four team playoff based on objective rules like those that I favor.

Without specifying a playoff format, here are some thoughts I have toward this season and more inclusion...

Ohio State should probably be in...1-loss Big 10 champs, IMO they've done enough to earn a bid in whatever playoff format there is...

LSU and West Virginia, if both win out, have done enough to earn a bid

If the Kansas/Mizzou winner wins the Big XII championship, they should be in...

Arizona State, if they run the table, should be in...

I also think the Boise State/Hawaii winner deserves to be in...

Now I don't know what specific format would capture these and only these teams...combined, that's 6 teams, and that assume that they all win out

I know I don't like the idea of Oklahoma or Texas, the ACC champ, or Oregon or USC playing for the National Championship...2 losses is pushing it IMO

[Blue Hen]

...you forgot to mention the Sun Belt, Evil. Almost all your playoff related posts, over the years, state that the Sun Belt must never be allowed to participate in a playoff :-)

[CJHawkeyes]

The one problem with playoff debates is that no matter which side you are on, things are not likely to play out the same way under all possible formats and rules. For example, suppose all I-A teams played 12 regular season games versus I-A competition only including six home and six away games and the objective rules I advocate are used to determine the BCS title game matchup. Under this scenario, schedules are likely to be very different as teams cannot just play for an unbeaten season by scheduling cupcakes and seven to eight home games. This would lead to fewer unbeatens and one-loss teams and there would be a much greater chance of two-loss teams making a one game playoff. If it gets to that point, a larger playoff might look better. The point is that 10-2 under one format isn't 10-2 under another if one format forces teams to play more home games and challenge themselves more. While I see why many like the sudden death nature of the current system, the sudden death system thrives because of unbalanced home and away schedules and weak OOC scheduling and a two class system that discourages parity at the top of the rankings.

[Bucs90]

My overall point is teams like OU and BC had their eye on the National Championship. And they are out. They can still win a CCG, which is a nice consolation prize, but they will still remember when they were NC contenders and think "what if"?

So, with an 8 team playoff, how many games would now become HUGE games? UT vs UK would become a MONSTER game, as UT, LSU and UGA would all have NATIONAL hopes riding on it. Now, only LSU has NC hopes, and UGA and UT only have conference hopes. But, the regular season would still be huge, because one loss could knock them out of that position.

With such a large number of teams fighting for only 8 spots, the regular season would never become irrelevant. If it were a 32 team playoff, yeah, it could. But 8 out of 119? 1 loss hurts, but you can survive. 2 losses? You are now in trouble. Same as it is now with the BCS, except we have a playoff. The fight for 1-4 would be huge because of home field and seeding. The fight for 5-8 would be huge because of surviving. More teams playing more important games. No down side.

[HellYeahHokie]

Well, your point certainly lends validity to the BCS supporter argument that in college football 'every game matters'. If you don't get it done in the regular season, you don't get a shot. Conference championship games are really more post-season, since not every conference has one. And (with the unique exception of Florida last year), is has been shown that CCGs can primarily hurt a team's chances.

So really, you are supporting one of the BCS arguments, rather than the opposite.

[AJBuckeye]

Not that I am a supporter of the BCS but I have accepted it since this is what we got.

Now getting back to your last point, OU was in complete control of their destiny. All they had to do was win out. In a sense these games leading up the the B12CCG have far more meaning because each game has a potential National Championship at stake.

Now LSU, WVU, KU, and Mizzou all have regular season games with the same impact as a playoff game. You win and you are still in the hunt. You lose and your done.

Every game that involve these teams on CCG day will have a huge impact which essentially equate to playoff type of games. Unfotunately, it does not happen every year like this but when it days then take it in for what it's worth.

[Bucs90]

I see both of your points, and maybe it is just that the importance factor would just switch depending on systems. In this system, the OU loss to TT was important, now the CCG not as much. Whereas in a playoff, the TT game would less important, and the CCG autobid game would be more important. I can see the point you both made though. I suppose mine would be that with an autobid there would be more teams with NC hopes rather than just conference hopes. But at the same time I can see your points about maybe a team just playing to get to the CCG and thats it.

[AJBuckeye]

Again I would love to see an playoff scenario with 8 teams as opposed to what we got now. In that scenario we would have at least 20+ games remaining that would impact the playoff scenario. In the current system we have roughly under 10 games that will have any bearing.

The system that we have and it won't be changing for may years. With what we have now every game matters as if it were a playoff game and a single slip could sink you. From tOSU perspective we had our chance and we blew it. I could argue that OSU should be ranked higher than teams like WVU and have valid points but the bottom line is that OSU had their chance but with a late loss and a perceived easy schedule has put them in position that will likely leave them out.

I still have my tickets for New Orleans since their is a glimmer of hope but the Rose Bowl certainly is a worthwhile consolation prize.

[ZOOMBAG]

Not that I am a supporter of the BCS but I have accepted it since this is what we got.

Now getting back to your last point, OU was in complete control of their destiny. All they had to do was win out. In a sense these games leading up the the B12CCG have far more meaning because each game has a potential National Championship at stake.

Now LSU, WVU, KU, and Mizzou all have regular season games with the same impact as a playoff game. You win and you are still in the hunt. You lose and your done.

Every game that involve these teams on CCG day will have a huge impact which essentially equate to playoff type of games. Unfotunately, it does not happen every year like this but when it days then take it in for what it's worth.

Well you either have a post season or you don't. In every team sport at every level, on this planet, you have distinctive REGULAR season and a POST-SEASON. The regular season qualifies you for a post season slot. It is how team sport is played. Anything else is pure EXHIBITION or RECREATIONAL "sport". AKA Div IA Bowl Division college football....not really a sport at all.....

[ZOOMBAG]

The only thing that really matters in this division of college football is a conference championship. It is the only thing that is decided as a normal championship is decided, entirely objectively....except the moronic Big 10, of course....

[Blue Hen]

Strong words

[HellYeahHokie]

You misspelled stupid

[EvilVodka]

In every team sport at every level, on this planet, you have distinctive REGULAR season and a POST-SEASON. The regular season qualifies you for a post season slot.

well that pretty much sums up the bowl season as well

not much of a distinction there, as most teams are trying to qualify for bowl slots in the post season

[CJHawkeyes]

well that pretty much sums up the bowl season as well

not much of a distinction there, as most teams are trying to qualify for bowl slots in the post season

I would argue that the distinction is akin to CBB teams "trying" to qualify for the NCAA tournament as opposed to the NIT. No true competitor would trade a championship berth for a consolation prize.

[HellYeahHokie]

I would argue that the distinction is akin to CBB teams "trying" to qualify for the NCAA tournament as opposed to the NIT. No true competitor would trade a championship berth for a consolation prize.

I would argue its pretty much eggheads at computers who consider them consolation prizes. I would argue that most players care about getting to any BCS bowl.

[CJHawkeyes]

I would argue its pretty much eggheads at computers who consider them consolation prizes. I would argue that most players care about getting to any BCS bowl.

I doubt I qualify as an egghead. That said, I would hope every player cares about winning each game they play in no matter the stakes. I know I would, but that is beside the point. If the championship is not at stake, the game is a consolation game.

[HellYeahHokie]

I doubt I qualify as an egghead. That said, I would hope every player cares about winning each game they play in no matter the stakes. I know I would, but that is beside the point. If the championship is not at stake, the game is a consolation game.

Dude, you came up with your own numerical system to rank teams. That makes you an egg head. Certifiable

(you should note, that as an engineer who spends his day on a computer, I don't consider that an insult).

However, I would continue to argue that what makes the bowl system still attractive to many teams and many fans, is that bowls are not considered consolation prizes**. Sure, every team would like a national championship, but winning a big bowl game is a big deal. If the Hokies win the ACC this year and go to the Orange Bowl, that will not be considered a consolation prize to the players or the fans. An Orange Bowl invitation and victory would be awesome.

This is what playoff advocates can't understand. I completely understand the argument for a playoff. I do. It makes complete sense. However, what makes college football unique is that these bowls** mean something to the players and the fans. In championship sports, nobody remembers who came in 3rd or 4th. But in football, people remember who won the Orange Bowl in 1995, or the Cotton Bowl in 1969, or the Sugar Bowl in 1990, etc. These games matter.

Of course, ever since the advent of the BCS, and it's pseudo-championship, these bowls have been marginalized already. This is what happens with playoff sports. The only thing that ends up mattering is who finished #1. In college football, who finished #1 isn't the only reason to celebrate. Winning a bowl game** matters to players and fans. That's unique, and that appeals to lots of people.

**Note: My points here don't really apply to the absurd number of extra bowls have been added in the past decade. The Boise Bowl, for example, is most certainly a consolation game for the ACC, and I don't think any player of fan cares about it.

[CJHawkeyes]

I didn't take egghead as an insult. I'm just not so sure I qualify as one and I don't think creating a simple ranking system that a five year old could understand helps my case. :D That said, I don't really disagree with anything you have said. Certainly, these games matters to players and fans, but I still contend that they are consolation games.

[Bucky]

I'll take a stab: This has been the greatest 13 weeks of football. The countless number have games with direct implications of #1 and #2 have been amazing. I don't think that an over hyped 8 or 16 team playoff could ever be this exciting.

For about the 6th straight week, we will hear the argument: "Yeah, but LSU(insert top 5 team that lost) was playing for homefield advantage in the first round so that would be just as exciting".

[ZOOMBAG]

Bowls that have no meaning of any kind, nothing more than another non-conference game....

[ZOOMBAG]

Players always care about winning the next game, no matter what it is. But that is completely irrelevant as bowl games are nothing more than another non-conference game that counts for nothing but a school's long term won-loss record.

[ZOOMBAG]

Dude, you came up with your own numerical system to rank teams. That makes you an egg head. Certifiable

(you should note, that as an engineer who spends his day on a computer, I don't consider that an insult).

However, I would continue to argue that what makes the bowl system still attractive to many teams and many fans, is that bowls are not considered consolation prizes**. Sure, every team would like a national championship, but winning a big bowl game is a big deal. If the Hokies win the ACC this year and go to the Orange Bowl, that will not be considered a consolation prize to the players or the fans. An Orange Bowl invitation and victory would be awesome.

This is what playoff advocates can't understand. I completely understand the argument for a playoff. I do. It makes complete sense. However, what makes college football unique is that these bowls** mean something to the players and the fans. In championship sports, nobody remembers who came in 3rd or 4th. But in football, people remember who won the Orange Bowl in 1995, or the Cotton Bowl in 1969, or the Sugar Bowl in 1990, etc. These games matter.

Of course, ever since the advent of the BCS, and it's pseudo-championship, these bowls have been marginalized already. This is what happens with playoff sports. The only thing that ends up mattering is who finished #1. In college football, who finished #1 isn't the only reason to celebrate. Winning a bowl game** matters to players and fans. That's unique, and that appeals to lots of people.

**Note: My points here don't really apply to the absurd number of extra bowls have been added in the past decade. The Boise Bowl, for example, is most certainly a consolation game for the ACC, and I don't think any player of fan cares about it.

The only reason some poor misguided fans, and players in their impressionable youth think they are big deal is they have been fed the lies over the years that this idiotic "tradition" that is college football is something that should be revered for some warped reason. A "competative" sport that has no competative championship. We have leagues around here that keep no standings and play no playoff tournament....they are mostly for non-competative children looking for an organized recreational activity, which is really all this level of college football is. That a few misguided fans, and youthful boys playing the game haven't figured that out is pretty much just brainwashing by the hidebound pin-heads that just can't tolerate change or loss of control over their little fiefdom.

Oh and "playoff sports"....hmmmm.... I really wasn't aware there was any other kind.....at least at competitive, non-recreational levels..... And try and remember what a "competitive" sport exists for. There is one and ONLY one goal for anyone participating in a a competitive sport....to win the CHAMPIONSHIP. Other go play intramurals if you want recreatiion.... Oh, maybe not, because even most intramural sports have championships....silly me....

[AJBuckeye]

Well I am pretty sure the the BCS Championship matters to myself, Evil Vodka, Gator Grad and about every one else on this board.

The difference between the Basketball and Football right now is that basketball has a 64 team playoff and football has a 2 team playoff. Any moron should be able to see that.

[HellYeahHokie]

Well I am pretty sure the the BCS Championship matters to myself, Evil Vodka, Gator Grad and about every one else on this board.

The difference between the Basketball and Football right now is that basketball has a 64 team playoff and football has a 2 team playoff. Any moron should be able to see that.

But Zoom isn't just any moron.

[ZOOMBAG]

A playoff would make the excitement of this season even MORE scintillating. The seeds and at-large bids are changing every week.... Teams that were completely out of the playoff picture three weeks ago (Virgnia Tech, USC, etc) are right back in it.

And yes, LSU just lost their first round bye in my playoff and not only did they lose that, they have even lost home field for round on. So instead of getting the lowest seed winner from the first round in their second round game at the Sugar Bowl, they will not probably have to travel on the road in the first round to play someone like Oregon in Autzen or go up north to Columbus in December to the Buckeys.....yeah, that's a BIG deal and you don't think that's exciting then you have no pulse

[GatorGrad]

A playoff isn't coming anytime soon, boys. Might as well TRY to enjoy what we have. It isn't perfect, but it's still fun. And we have our playoffs. Tennessee vs Kentucky will decide the SEC East today. LSU-Bama decided the SEC West a few weeks ago. The SEC Championship game is Dec 1st. Clemson-BC decided one division in the ACC, and UVA-VT will decide the other. The winners will face off in a "playoff" on Dec 1st in Jax. Mizzou plays Kansas today for the Big 12 North! USC vs AzSt was pretty much like a PAC 10 playoff game. If you guys would quit worrying about this NATIONAL race, you would realize that there is a legit and fair way of determining championships in college football...they are just at the CONFERENCE level.

["14-O" U.]

Well I am pretty sure the the BCS Championship matters to myself, Evil Vodka, Gator Grad and about every one else on this board.

The difference between the Basketball and Football right now is that basketball has a 64 team playoff and football has a 2 team playoff. Any moron should be able to see that.


It mattered to ZOOMBAG back when Nebraska was perceived to be at the top of the heap. He used to argue against calling them MNCs - and that was before the BCS at least tried to match the top two at the end of the year.

I would prefer a playoff. The people that control things don't want one. That's all I have to say about that...

[ZOOMBAG]

In basketball at least all 32 conferences get a shot and the governing body manages the championship. In college football the two teams are nothing more than a collection of often misguided OPINIONS and the governing body has NO INPUT. Thus it is MEANINGLESS. IT is still interesting, but it amounts to NOTHING.

[ZOOMBAG]

Nope, didn't matter then either. Even 1995 was "mythical" and irrelevant. It was "interesting" and "entertaining" but not "meaningful". The circus is "interesting", and "entertaining", too.

[Blue Hen]

True Story there, GG. Thanks for reminding us to enjoy what's 'real' in FBS CF.

Unfortunately, FBS fandom is brainwashed into obsessing over this 'joke' of a national championship.

[Bucky]

True Story there, GG. Thanks for reminding us to enjoy what's 'real' in FBS CF.

Unfortunately, FBS fandom is brainwashed into obsessing over this 'joke' of a national championship.

What makes you think that your version of what college football would be is so much better? Do you know with all certainty that an NFL style playoff format would be more exciting then the current 14 week college football playoff?

Anyone who has enough perspective to enjoy just the excitment of the past 13 weeks of regluar season football is brainwashed? Please...you need to get a grip. Get off your damn soapbox and start enjoying college football for the great sport that it is.

[CJHawkeyes]

What makes you think that your version of what college football would be is so much better? Do you know with all certainty that an NFL style playoff format would be more exciting then the current 14 week college football playoff?

Anyone who has enough perspective to enjoy just the excitment of the past 13 weeks of regluar season football is brainwashed? Please...you need to get a grip. Get off your damn soapbox and start enjoying college football for the great sport that it is.

How would you know that it wouldn't be more exciting? I want the excitement of chasing a playoff berth and ultimately competing in a playoff as opposed to chasing glorified consolation games after one loss. Iowa might have participated in five playoffs during my lifetime. The thought of that is infinitely more exciting to me than all of their bowl games combined. All of those exciting games that occurred this year would have still happened and I don't think they would have been diminished because the loser isn't eliminated from the national title race. Every week the SEC gave us at least one unbelievably dramatic game, but all of those wins have been rendered meaningless because no one in the conference avoided two losses. Every national champion under this system ultimately wins for reasons beyond their control. Ohio State may play for the national title this year without beating a single team that would make a 16 team playoff. That is nothing but luck.

[Bucs90]

Good points CJ. If we had a 6 or 8 team playoff right now, my God, how exciting would this season be on top of how great it has already been? A playoff would be the extra cheese on a great pizza!

The NFL playoff vs a NCAA playoff isn't really a good comparison. 32 teams, 12 get in. Sure, when over 1/3 of teams make the playoffs, some regular season is diminished. 119 teams and 6 or 8 get in- well, if only 5% of your teams make the playoffs, the fight for those spots will obviously be intense and the margin of error would be slim. If we had an 8 team playoff, with 6 BCS auto bids, how big would the ACC and SEC championship games be? Now, they are important to fans of those schools, but nothing more than that. But, if the Big 12 champ had to watch the SEC and ACC CCGs to see where and who they play, it adds a whole new dimension.

Good point again CJ about Ohio State. I'm not gonna knock 'em, because the other teams should've won their games. But, the fact that Kansas could lose today, and Mizzou lose the Big 12 CCG, and WVU gets upset, and you'll get OSU vs Kansas in the NC game, with Kansas losing their division and OSU jumping 5 spots without playing a game. It's just a busted system.

[CJHawkeyes]

Good points CJ. If we had a 6 or 8 team playoff right now, my God, how exciting would this season be on top of how great it has already been? A playoff would be the extra cheese on a great pizza!

The NFL playoff vs a NCAA playoff isn't really a good comparison. 32 teams, 12 get in. Sure, when over 1/3 of teams make the playoffs, some regular season is diminished. 119 teams and 6 or 8 get in- well, if only 5% of your teams make the playoffs, the fight for those spots will obviously be intense and the margin of error would be slim. If we had an 8 team playoff, with 6 BCS auto bids, how big would the ACC and SEC championship games be? Now, they are important to fans of those schools, but nothing more than that. But, if the Big 12 champ had to watch the SEC and ACC CCGs to see where and who they play, it adds a whole new dimension.

Good point again CJ about Ohio State. I'm not gonna knock 'em, because the other teams should've won their games. But, the fact that Kansas could lose today, and Mizzou lose the Big 12 CCG, and WVU gets upset, and you'll get OSU vs Kansas in the NC game, with Kansas losing their division and OSU jumping 5 spots without playing a game. It's just a busted system.

I'm not attempting to knock Ohio State. I actually think it would be funny if the Buckeyes won the national title to spite all of their haters. As for your playoff, my one problem with it is that it maintains the two-class system by giving BCS conferences auto bids. As far as BCS schools are concerned, the difference between an 8-team playoff and a 16 team playoff with auto bids would be three teams in most years as only 11 BCS schools could make the latter. I think a 16 team playoff is needed to give nonBCS schools something they have been denied forever............an opportunity.

[Bucs90]

16 would be good. I got no problem with that, although I'm more compromise oriented as a compromise is probably the only realistic chance of getting the school presidents to go along with any playoff. As much as I hate the idea of the BCS, I do think the system does an OK job of presenting the top 10 teams as a group- it is the placing of them in an order 1-10 that I don't trust. But, if I had to name the 10 best teams, it would be similar to the BCS top 10.

[CJHawkeyes]

16 would be good. I got no problem with that, although I'm more compromise oriented as a compromise is probably the only realistic chance of getting the school presidents to go along with any playoff. As much as I hate the idea of the BCS, I do think the system does an OK job of presenting the top 10 teams as a group- it is the placing of them in an order 1-10 that I don't trust. But, if I had to name the 10 best teams, it would be similar to the BCS top 10.

Whatever size playoff there is, determining the participants in a completely objective manner is the most important thing to me. My system produces results comparable to polls but the difference is that objectivity tells us how and why teams earn their place in the standings.

[Bucs90]

I'm OK with that. When dealing with such a large number of teams fighting for such a low number of slots, any system is gonna have it's challenges. But one using a 2 team playoff is just an insult to fans.

[Bucky]

How would you know that it wouldn't be more exciting? I want the excitement of chasing a playoff berth and ultimately competing in a playoff as opposed to chasing glorified consolation games after one loss. Iowa might have participated in five playoffs during my lifetime. The thought of that is infinitely more exciting to me than all of their bowl games combined. All of those exciting games that occurred this year would have still happened and I don't think they would have been diminished because the loser isn't eliminated from the national title race. Every week the SEC gave us at least one unbelievably dramatic game, but all of those wins have been rendered meaningless because no one in the conference avoided two losses. Every national champion under this system ultimately wins for reasons beyond their control. Ohio State may play for the national title this year without beating a single team that would make a 16 team playoff. That is nothing but luck.


I don't know if it would be more exciting. But I can say that this has been the greatest 13 weeks straight of college football. The BCS is an evolvong solution. I can imagine that we might see more tweaks in this offseason. First and foremost I would like to see them change the fact that a non-conference champion can sneak into the title game ala Oklahoma(it's not going to happen this year with Kansas).

As for "luck", why do people assume luck magically disapears from the sport under a playoff format? I find that belief to be very obtuse. All the Ohio State haters are going to cry and whine for the next 50 days that the Buckeyes "backed" into the BCS game without playing because of luck. There is an insane amount of luck each March in the NCAA tournament. Everything from luck in the game to the luck of the draw. A playoff in college football would have just as much luck involved. Luck is a part of sports at every level of competition.

[Bucs90]

I agree it has been the best 13 weeks ever. But the BCS didn't make that happen. If this season was a 6 team playoff, this would still be the greatest season ever.

And, I won't cry about OSU backing in. I won't like it, because I'd rather see all teams play their way into it. If by some stroke of, yep, LUCK, Georgia were to make it's way in, I wouldn't like that either.

But, under a 16 team format, the luck would be to determine which teams get the last 2-3 slots, not which 2 teams get the auto bid to the NC game. If luck must determine which 4 loss teams get in or not, OK, thats an acceptable issue. But if luck determines what year an undefeated team can or cannot qualify to play for the NC game, I can't accept that.

[CJHawkeyes]

I don't know if it would be more exciting. But I can say that this has been the greatest 13 weeks straight of college football. The BCS is an evolvong solution. I can imagine that we might see more tweaks in this offseason. First and foremost I would like to see them change the fact that a non-conference champion can sneak into the title game ala Oklahoma(it's not going to happen this year with Kansas).

As for "luck", why do people assume luck magically disapears from the sport under a playoff format? I find that belief to be very obtuse. All the Ohio State haters are going to cry and whine for the next 50 days that the Buckeyes "backed" into the BCS game without playing because of luck. There is an insane amount of luck each March in the NCAA tournament. Everything from luck in the game to the luck of the draw. A playoff in college football would have just as much luck involved. Luck is a part of sports at every level of competition.


That isn't the kind of luck of I'm speaking of when I started that thread. Even assuming an unbeaten season, the luck involved in making a two team playoff does not apply to a 16 team playoff. Again, making a two-team playoff is out of everyone's hands no matter what they do.

[Bucky]

I agree it has been the best 13 weeks ever. But the BCS didn't make that happen. If this season was a 6 team playoff, this would still be the greatest season ever.

And, I won't cry about OSU backing in. I won't like it, because I'd rather see all teams play their way into it. If by some stroke of, yep, LUCK, Georgia were to make it's way in, I wouldn't like that either.

But, under a 16 team format, the luck would be to determine which teams get the last 2-3 slots, not which 2 teams get the auto bid to the NC game. If luck must determine which 4 loss teams get in or not, OK, thats an acceptable issue. But if luck determines what year an undefeated team can or cannot qualify to play for the NC game, I can't accept that.

How under the euphoric 16 team playoff is luck only relevent to the last few spots? All that I hear from you people is how being the #1 seed is paramount under your format due to having an easier path to the final and having homefield advantage. How are you going to eliminate the luck that would be involved in determining the seeds #1-8?

[Bucky]

That isn't the kind of luck of I'm speaking of when I started that thread. Even assuming an unbeaten season, the luck involved in making a two team playoff does not apply to a 16 team playoff. Again, making a two-team playoff is out of everyone's hands no matter what they do.

Then are you saying that under your system that the difference between the #1 seed and the #13 seed is negligible? Because luck would be involved in determining any of those seeds.

Or do you still stand by the belief that that under a playoff, the regular season would be more critical becauase teams are fighting for higher seeds and homefield advantage. You cannot eliminate the inherent luck that would be involved in seeding the teams. It's the same type of "luck" that is currently relevant in determining the BCS top 2.

[Bucs90]

I don't think he means luck as much as a fumble or injury as he does luck on a grand scale: being undefeated in a year when 2 other BCS teams also happen to go undefeated. Or, better example, losing your division in a year when that is enough to qualify for the NC.

In a 16 team playoff, if you go undefeated, you are guaranteed to get your chance to win a NC by beating others on the field. If you are a 1 loss team, you don't need to pray for that only 1 team finishes undefeated, and so on. The luck, however, would be with teams with 4 losses- can you get in or not?

Luck on the field, however, is not what I think he was referring to.

[Bucs90]

Yeah, Bucky, I think the luck would transfer from "Will we even get a chance to play for the NC" to "Are we going on the road or staying here for the 1st round". Yeah, luck would determine home field, seeding, etc. But the fact is the teams with legit claims to the NC today would all be guaranteed to have a chance to prove it on the field. If 2006 Boise St had that same season this year, maybe they are in the NC game. Again, luck would have it that they had that season last year, not this year.

[CJHawkeyes]

How under the euphoric 16 team playoff is luck only relevent to the last few spots? All that I hear from you people is how being the #1 seed is paramount under your format due to having an easier path to the final and having homefield advantage. How are you going to eliminate the luck that would be involved in determining the seeds #1-8?

You may have a solid argument here. However, at least where my desired format is concerned, the role of luck in determining seeds is significantly less bothersome to me. Between teams controlling their destiny as far as going unbeaten is concerned and schools knowing the value of acquiring a strong schedule, the difference that the role of luck would play in seeding as opposed to which unbeaten or one-loss team gets to play for the national title in a two-team playoff is astronomical to me. For example, the luck involved in playing a slightly stronger schedule thereby allowing Oklahoma to host Auburn in the semifinal round is in no way comparable to that same difference allowing only Oklahoma to play for the national title. Had they been influenced by the rules I favor, both schools could have pursed stronger schedules even going on the road if necessary in order to limit the luck involved in getting the desired seed.

[Bucs90]

Good points CJ. Except, the luck in OU vs Auburn was OU getting the preseason #2 vote, not a stronger schedule, as Auburn beat more ranked teams than either OU or USC that year (I'm assuming you are referring to 04)

[CJHawkeyes]

Good points CJ. Except, the luck in OU vs Auburn was OU getting the preseason #2 vote, not a stronger schedule, as Auburn beat more ranked teams than either OU or USC that year (I'm assuming you are referring to 04)

I was referencing my own system. Based on I-A games only, Oklahoma finished ahead of Auburn. That said, either way, the role luck plays in determining which team gets a higher seed does not bother me anywhere near as much as that differnce deciding which unbeaten plays for the national title. Bad luck may force Auburn to play at Oklahoma, but they still get to play for the national title where they can use their talent to overcome homefield disadvantage.

[Bucs90]

Exactly. Agree 100%.