Question #1

[GatorGrad]

I've seen a lot of people say that the BCS Championship Game should be limited to conference champions only. While I agree that when all else is equal, conference champs should have priority, it cannot be an actual rule. For one, there are Independents such as Notre Dame which would be eliminated. So whether it's a 2, 4, 6, or 8, 12, or 16 team playoff, you will always have to have room for "at large" teams. I then read this article on ESPN.com which lays out a scenario / example of why you can't have a rule limiting it to conference champs. Agree or disagree?


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=roadtobcs/0805

It's time to settle this once and for all.

It started when Nebraska reached the BCS Championship Game in 2001 without winning the Big 12 North.

And it escalated in 2003, when Oklahoma reached the BCS Championship Game after losing by four touchdowns in the Big 12 title tilt.

Would you like to see the No. 1 BCS squad left out of the title game?

Ever since that time, there have been cries from media and fans alike that something should be done to make sure this never happens again. Yet, BCS administrators have refused to take that step.

So if you've ever wondered why a team is still eligible to play for the national championship even if it doesn't even win its conference ... well, here you go.

Let's play the ever-popular game of BCS hypotheticals.

Now, these aren't crazy, worst-case-scenario hypotheticals. None of these requires a team to lose as an overwhelming favorite.

• Oklahoma beats Texas Tech and Oklahoma State and wins the three-way tie in the Big 12 South, then loses to Missouri in the Big 12 title game. Missouri (11-2) is the Big 12 champion.

• Florida loses at Florida State, then wins a close game against Alabama. Florida (11-2) is the SEC champion.

• Oregon State beats Arizona and Oregon to win the Pac-10 title with a 9-3 overall record. USC also wins out to finish 11-1.

• Penn State beats Michigan State to win the Big Ten title with an 11-1 record.

• Utah beats BYU and wins the Mountain West with a 12-0 record.

If all of this happened, my best guess is that the final BCS standings would have a top 3 of No. 1 Texas, No. 2 USC and No. 3 Texas Tech. And it's possible Alabama could be ranked No. 4.

But if a rule existed that allowed only conference champions to play for the BCS title, then none of those four teams would be eligible to compete for the ultimate prize. In this scenario, the championship game would likely be played between Penn State (11-1) and Florida (11-2), while Missouri (11-2) and Utah (12-0) would also have arguments to be included.

Some might ask why USC, as Pac-10 co-champion, would not be considered eligible. The explanation is simple: If the Big 12, SEC and ACC can have only one champion because of a title game, then the other conferences can't have two or three champions. Tiebreakers would have to be used to break ties for a conference title when those situations occurred. (Thus, Oregon State would be the Pac-10 champion based on its victory over USC.)

So, anyone who would feel fulfilled by watching No. 5 play No. 6 for the national championship can keep demanding that teams be required to win their conference titles to earn a spot on the BCS big stage.

[CJHawkeyes]

While I understand the desire for such a rule, I have always argued that it is full of holes. I believe many proponents of this rule adopted it as a matter of convenience in order to argue against the politically incorrect results in 2001 and 2003 without any thought to all the possible scenarios which would cause them to ditch it. It is actually possible for a team to go 11-1, beat the top five conference champions including its own, but be ineligible for the NC. Furthermore, such a rule basically punishes a team for losing the exact wrong game rather than rewarding the team with the strongest overall season. Besides that, based on my own point system, a non-champion would have only made it three times in 30 years.

BTW, if conferences without CCGs can only have one champion too, I would imagine these leagues would use the BCS rankings as the first tiebreaker. HTH tiebreakers are a glorified version of rock, paper, and scissors anyway.

[Blue Hen]

Should have 'at large' slots in a CF playoff....just like all the 'real' existing CF championships have.

As for the mythical BCS $hit ????......I don't care what plays in that thing.

[GatorGrad]

My opinion is that NO conference champs should receive auto-bids in a 2, 4, 6, or even 8 team playoff. You have to use BCS rankings, a committee, or even better...an objective formula to decide the teams. Say you had an 8-team playoff with the 6 BCS Conference Champs + 2 at large bids. An unbeaten team like Utah likely gets left out in that scenario this year since the SEC and Big 12 would likely get the two at large bids. However if it was just the top 8 of the BCS standings, an objective formula, comittee, etc, Utah should get in. I guess my point is that it's not really fair to allow say a 7-5 BCS Conference Champ to get in over an unbeaten Utah team or one or two loss BCS Conference Runner Up...both of which had better seasons in this scenario. The only way conference champs should get auto bids is in a real 16-team NCAA playoff where ALL 11 conference champs get automatic bids.

[CJHawkeyes]

My opinion is that NO conference champs should receive auto-bids in a 2, 4, 6, or even 8 team playoff. You have to use BCS rankings, a committee, or even better...an objective formula to decide the teams. Say you had an 8-team playoff with the 6 BCS Conference Champs + 2 at large bids. An unbeaten team like Utah likely gets left out in that scenario this year since the SEC and Big 12 would likely get the two at large bids. However if it was just the top 8 of the BCS standings, an objective formula, comittee, etc, Utah should get in. I guess my point is that it's not really fair to allow say a 7-5 BCS Conference Champ to get in over an unbeaten Utah team or one or two loss BCS Conference Runner Up...both of which had better seasons in this scenario. The only way conference champs should get auto bids is in a real 16-team NCAA playoff where ALL 11 conference champs get automatic bids.


Definitely agree. If there is an eight team playoff, the BCS conferences cannot have guarantees like they do now. Otherwise, it will be more of the same with recruits knowing that nonBCS teams must go undefeated to make the playoffs. I could see the top eight conference champions. I think the only way nonBCS leagues accept auto bids for the BCS leagues is if they are guaranteed the last two spots. As always, this sport needs objective rules to guarantee fairness and accountability.

[GatorGrad]

Definitely agree. If there is an eight team playoff, the BCS conferences cannot have guarantees like they do now.

...which is why the BCS Conferences do not want to see an 8-team playoff. The most you will see under the BCS umbrella is a four-team mini playoff.


I could see the top eight conference champions.

...but then assuming you are still talking about an 8-team playoff, you are excluding all independents such as Notre Dame...can't happen.

I think it's either the current two-team BCS or possibly four-team mini BCS playoff....or it would have to be blown up completely and the NCAA would have to run a real 16-team playoff including all conference champions. I just don't see a 6, 8, or 12 team playoff working within the structure of either the BCS or the NCAA.

[CJHawkeyes]

...which is why the BCS Conferences do not want to see an 8-team playoff. The most you will see under the BCS umbrella is a four-team mini playoff.




...but then assuming you are still talking about an 8-team playoff, you are excluding all independents such as Notre Dame...can't happen.

I think it's either the current two-team BCS or possibly four-team mini BCS playoff....or it would have to be blown up completely and the NCAA would have to run a real 16-team playoff including all conference champions. I just don't see a 6, 8, or 12 team playoff working within the structure of either the BCS or the NCAA.

I agree. It is either four or 16 because of the auto bid issue. BTW, I assumed with the top 8 champions idea that the independents could be included in some way. Not that it matters. :D

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

It doesn't matter which teams play for the BCS championship. It is a just another bowl game.

Why not a 16-team playoff, GatorGrad, with the NCAA deciding how to select and seed the participating teams? That system is tried and proven and has worked very well for all of the other NCAA football divisions. The ultimate winner is the undisputed national champion.

[CJHawkeyes]

It doesn't matter which teams play for the BCS championship. It is a just another bowl game.

Why not a 16-team playoff, GatorGrad, with the NCAA deciding how to select and seed the participating teams? That system is tried and proven and has worked very well for all of the other NCAA football divisions. The ultimate winner is the undisputed national champion.

No selecting the playoff teams.

[GatorGrad]

It doesn't matter which teams play for the BCS championship. It is a just another bowl game.

Why not a 16-team playoff, GatorGrad, with the NCAA deciding how to select and seed the participating teams? That system is tried and proven and has worked very well for all of the other NCAA football divisions. The ultimate winner is the undisputed national champion.

I think I've been pretty consistent in my posts here over the years that I would be all for an NCAA 16-team playoff with all 11 conference champs + 5 at large bids qualifying. I'm also realistic enough to know that it's not going to happen anytime soon so I am always hoping for progress towards the next step in the right direction which in my opinion is expanding what is currently just a two-team playoff to a four team playoff. Even that won't happen until at least the 2014 season now that ESPN has paid for the rights:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3710477

[GatorGrad]

By the way, unlike CJ, I probably wouldn't have a problem with the 5 at large bids being "selected" and all 16 teams being "seeded" by a committee...as long as all 11 conference champs received auto bids which would mean that all teams controlled their own destiny. An objective ranking system to select those 5 at large bids and seed the teams would of course be better, but in my opinion is not a "must have" as long as all conferences have auto bids. That said, in a playoff for less than 16 teams where not all conferences got auto bids to the tournament, an objective system IS a "must have" in my opinion. If a 16-team playoff is not going to happen, I would love to see an 8 or 4 team playoff using objective rankings. Actually, the two-team playoff that is the BCS Championship Game would be better off by having an objective system determine the two participants. No more polls!

[CJHawkeyes]

By the way, unlike CJ, I probably wouldn't have a problem with the 5 at large bids being "selected" and all 16 teams being "seeded" by a committee...as long as all 11 conference champs received auto bids which would mean that all teams controlled their own destiny. An objective ranking system to select those 5 at large bids and seed the teams would of course be better, but in my opinion is not a "must have" as long as all conferences have auto bids. That said, in a playoff for less than 16 teams where not all conferences got auto bids to the tournament, an objective system IS a "must have" in my opinion. If a 16-team playoff is not going to happen, I would love to see an 8 or 4 team playoff using objective rankings. Actually, the two-team playoff that is the BCS Championship Game would be better off by having an objective system determine the two participants. No more polls!


I'm disappointed in you.:( :D

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Any D-IA playoff system that is not totally controlled and administered by the NCAA will never be able to produce a true national champion. The winner would be a mythical national champion, which is what we have already.

So, what's the point?

[GatorGrad]

What's your point in asking what's the point?

My original point is that you can't have a rule limiting any playoff to "conference champs only" due to there being independents such as Notre Dame who are not in a conference. There has to be room for "at large" teams.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

If you or anyone else is making the rules, then the NCAA isn't making the rules, GatorGrad.

If the NCAA isn't in charge, then you won't have a national championship playoff system.

If you don't have a national championship playoff system then all you would have is what we already have -- a mythical national champion.

So, once again, what's the point?

[GatorGrad]

I understand all of that. I want an NCAA Playoff as much as anyone. But the reality is that we don't have one and won't have one any time soon. So are we not allowed to discuss the BCS or anything else? Even if we don't have a 16-team NCAA Playoff on the way, I happen to find it interesting to discuss ways that the current BCS could improve. Whether it be objective rules, expanding from the current two-team BCS Playoff to four or more teams, whether or not to include a "conference champions only" rule, etc.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Discuss the BCS all you wish. If it doesn't produce a true national champion, then anything you come up with will result in what we already have - a mythical national champion.

If you are into meaningless exercises, then have at it.

[Blue Hen]

You fellers are going around in circles ;-).

Agree with Herd Fan - unless the governing body of the sport recognizes a post season event as a championship it's not legitimate. It's like a select group of NFL teams going off and having some kind of post season event without the sanction of the NFL office and calling it a league championship....no good. Fraud....or like the Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals and Dodgers having an exclusive post season event and declaring the winner world champ. Fraud ! The BCS fraudulently uses 'national championship' to describe one of its games. To the governing body of the sport that event is simply just another exhibition bowl game.

I also see GG's point that a 4 team renegade 'make believe' championship arguably beats a 2 team renegade 'make believe' championship ....maybe.

[GatorGrad]

Discuss the BCS all you wish.

Thanks...but I didn't need your permission to do so.

If it doesn't produce a true national champion, then anything you come up with will result in what we already have - a mythical national champion.

Agreed...not sure what your point is. And there are steps that can be taken by the BCS that could ultimately lead to a real NCAA Playoff someday.

If you are into meaningless exercises, then have at it.

If your opinion is that discussing the BCS and how it could improve and someday lead to a legit playoff is meaningless, then why are you even clicking on this thread again and again and posting on it? Ignore it.

[GatorGrad]

You fellers are going around in circles ;-).

Agree with Herd Fan - unless the governing body of the sport recognizes a post season event as a championship it's not legitimate. It's like a select group of NFL teams going off and having some kind of post season event without the sanction of the NFL office and calling it a league championship....no good. Fraud....or like the Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals and Dodgers having an exclusive post season event and declaring the winner world champ. Fraud ! The BCS fraudulently uses 'national championship' to describe one of its games. To the governing body of the sport that event is simply just another exhibition bowl game.

I also see GG's point that a 4 team renegade 'make believe' championship arguably beats a 2 team renegade 'make believe' championship ....maybe.

Again, I don't see anyone on this thread claiming that any BCS National Champion is a legit NCAA National Champion. I'm not sure where that idea came from other than Herd Fan picking arguments out of thin air again. That said, an NCAA Playoff is not reality right now and we're stuck with the BCS and as long as we have to have the BCS, I would like to see it improved. What's wrong with that?

I would like to see more teams included, objective rules, and other changes made which I believe would ultimately lead us to a 16-team NCAA Playoff someday. I can guarantee that we aren't going from the current two-team BCS Playoff to a full blown 16-team NCAA Playoff in one swoop. There will have to be steps in between...a progression. So if you would like to see a real NCAA Playoff, hoping for significant changes in the BCS that will lead to the "slippery slope" that some of the powers that be are afraid of should be of interest to you IMO.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

GATORGRAD: So are we not allowed to discuss the BCS or anything else?
FLORIDA HERD FAN: Discuss the BCS all you wish.
GATORGRAD: Thanks...but I didn't need your permission to do so.
I am in tears! You are way too funny, GatorGrad!

That aside, you presume that a BCS playoff sytem would be a step toward an NCAA-administered national championship system. I wasn't aware that the BCS was in the business of committing suicide.

IMHO, the BCS would only move to a BCS playoff system in order to reduce public clamor for an NCAA-administered true national championship system. Public pressure has already forced the BCS to allow a non-BCS team to play in a BCS bowl.

[GatorGrad]

In tears? Really?? You have a weird sense of humor. And yes, I think that over time, the more the BCS expands their current two-team playoff to four or eight teams, the closer we will ultimately get to an NCAA Playoff. Once we get a taste of a playoff, we will want more.

And even if we never do end up getting a real NCAA Playoff, I would much prefer an 8 or 16 team BCS Playoff over the current 2 team BCS Playoff. So I don't see any downside to hoping for change, and I enjoy discussing it. If you think it's pointless, then stop reading this thread.

[ZOOMBAG]

I enjoy watching the Presidents make ever more ridiculous arguments in the BCS's defense. At some point, you've got to think that these reasonably intelligent people will get tired of painting themselves as complete morons, and outright liars, and cave.

Most the time college Presidents are private people and don;t like getting out in public. They are academic royalty and enjoy life in their isolated bubbles of academia, which never has dealt with reality very well. But with the BCS they are force into the public sector and and such are exposed for the completely clueless, disconnected, isolated, pampered children they really are.

[Blue Hen]

The problem with the BCS taking 'steps' toward a more inclusive post season event is that BCS club becomes more powerful and in control. The first baby step toward a legitimate CF national championship is to bury the BCS system....not expand it.

[Blue Hen]

I think the threat of a lawsuit, which might just have shut down the greedy cartel, was what prompted the BCS gang to allow a token participation of the mids in the big $ exhibitions. Probably not "public pressure". The public is too dumb and gullable. It 'buys' the BCS fraud for the most part.

[Blue Hen]

I think they are more greedy than all that other stuff, regarding the CF post season. At least add 'greedy' to all those other things you say they are.

[GatorGrad]

The problem with the BCS taking 'steps' toward a more inclusive post season event is that BCS club becomes more powerful and in control. The first baby step toward a legitimate CF national championship is to bury the BCS system....not expand it.

Perhaps...but that doesn't seem to be possible right now so I think the next best thing just to keep the wheels in motion would be to see an expanded BCS Playoff. A four-team BCS playoff would be better than the current two-team BCS playoff, as long as we have to have the BCS, IMO. And I don't think that the BCS can do better than a four-team playoff without blowing things up. A four-team playoff fits nicely into their current piggy-back model and doesn't change much with the current bowl system. You won't see the BCS run an 8, 12, or 16 team playoff...ever...in my opinion.

We went from all of the top teams playing in separate bowl games pre-1992 to the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance (1992-1997) where they at least tried to match up the #1 and #2 ranked teams (unless the Big Ten or PAC 10 were involved) to now the current BCS where the Big Ten and PAC 10 are involved in a two-team BCS playoff system. The next logical step is a four-team playoff system within the BCS. After that, I believe that the next step, if there ever is one, would be the end of the BCS and an NCAA 16-team playoff. I just hope I'm still alive to see it someday.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Another instant classic from GatorGrad, totally contradicting himself within the same post!

GatorGrad: (I agree with you, Blue Hen,) that the BCS taking 'steps' toward a more inclusive post season event is that BCS club becomes more powerful and in control. The first baby step toward a legitimate CF national championship is to bury the BCS system....not expand it.

Now, the contradiction...

But that doesn't seem to be possible right now so I think the next best thing just to keep the wheels in motion would be to see an expanded BCS Playoff. A four-team BCS playoff would be better than the current two-team BCS playoff, as long as we have to have the BCS, IMO.

[Blue Hen]

Me too. I'm 61 so it doesn't look good for me.

[GatorGrad]

Huh? When did I say "I agree with you, Blue Hen" ??? Those are your words, not mine.

You are saying that I contradicted myself based on something that I never said?

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Originally Posted by Blue Hen
The problem with the BCS taking 'steps' toward a more inclusive post season event is that BCS club becomes more powerful and in control. The first baby step toward a legitimate CF national championship is to bury the BCS system....not expand it.

GatorGrad: Perhaps...but that doesn't seem to be possible right now so I think the next best thing just to keep the wheels in motion would be to see an expanded BCS Playoff.

Interpretation: Perhaps...but that doesn't seem possible right now so I think that the next best thing is to do the exact opposite of what you said, Blue Hen.

Putting all seriousness aside, I agree with both sides.

[kocurt]

The only fair way to do it, is take the top 8 BCS ranked teams, no matter who they are or where they are from. If the SEC and BIG 12 send four teams each and nobody else makes it, tough. If the MWC sends TCU, BYU, and Utah and the ACC and BIG East send nobody, tough. If the SEC sends all eight teams and nobody else goes, tough. The only fair way is to take the top 8 teams. Schedule tough, win, and you get to go. Lose or schedule light, and you dont go. Simple as that.

[GatorGrad]

GatorGrad: Perhaps...but that doesn't seem to be possible right now so I think the next best thing just to keep the wheels in motion would be to see an expanded BCS Playoff.

Interpretation: Perhaps...but that doesn't seem possible right now so I think that the next best thing is to do the exact opposite of what you said, Blue Hen.

Putting all seriousness aside, I agree with both sides.

Do you know what the word "perhaps" means? It is another way of saying "maybe" or "possibly." As in maybe Hen is right, maybe he is not. But regardless, we'll probably never know since the BCS system has little chance of being buried anyways, and thus I am interested in what I think would be the next realistic step...expanding what is currently a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff to see where that leads. My opinion is that expanding to a four-team BCS Playoff would do more for getting us closer to a 16-team NCAA Playoff than doing nothing and keeping the current two-team BCS Playoff.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Chamberlain was just as sure that the Munich Dictate would lead to a larger settlement which would bring peace to all of Europe, GatorGrad. The fact is, you have no basis in fact for propounding that an expanded BCS playoff system would lead to an NCAA championship system. If you are wrong, then you could commisserate with Neville's ghost.

A four or eight team BCS playoff system is more likely to accomplish two things, (1) take the public pressure heat off the BCS and (2) exclude deserving non-BCS teams from an opportunity to compete for a national championship.

The real solution is ever so simple. Do both. Let the BCS do whatever it pleases - 2-team, 4-team or 8-team playoff for a BCS championship. And, let the NCAA develop and manage a 16-team D-IA national champion playoff system. Ultimately, the free market would decide which, if not both, would survive. Of course, that assumes that the BCS isn't afraid of a little competition.

Just curious - just what is a one-game two-team playoff? Isn't that still just one game between two teams that are selected by polls and computers?

[GatorGrad]

The fact is, you have no basis in fact for propounding that an expanded BCS playoff system would lead to an NCAA championship system.

Of course I don't have a basis of fact on this - it's an opinion. I've said all along that this was my opinion. This is a message board, where we share opinions, no? That said, one person involved in the recent four-team BCS Playoff discussion last spring said that one reason they don't want to expand to a four-team BCS playoff is because it would be a "slippery slope." In other words, they know that once you get to four, the public will demand eight, and so on, and it will eventually lead to the full-blown playoff that they do not want. So my opinion isn't totally unfounded.

A four or eight team BCS playoff system is more likely to accomplish two things, (1) take the public pressure heat off the BCS and (2) exclude deserving non-BCS teams from an opportunity to compete for a national championship.

And that is your opinion. Nicely done! Instead of picking out some technicality to stir up another pissing contest, or asking what the point of the topic is instead of ignoring the thread, it looks like you're actually discussing and debating the topic...I commend you! Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are wrong. I definitely see your point on #1, but #2 would depend on how they put together the playoff. If it were 6 BCS Conference Champs + 2 at large teams in an 8-team BCS Playoff then yes, I could see deserving non-BCS teams getting excluded...especially in a year like this year. However if it were straight up BCS rankings 1-8, I think you would see non-BCS teams who finish unbeaten get their shot. Teams like Utah '04, Boise St '06, and possibly Utah '08 would be in the top eight and qualify.

The real solution is ever so simple. Do both. Let the BCS do whatever it pleases - 2-team, 4-team or 8-team playoff for a BCS championship. And, let the NCAA develop and manage a 16-team D-IA national champion playoff system. Ultimately, the free market would decide which, if not both, would survive. Of course, that assumes that the BCS isn't afraid of a little competition.

That would be great! But you and I both know it's not going to happen. Of course the BCS is afraid of competition. What entity wouldn't enjoy complete control like the BCS currently enjoys?

Just curious - just what is a one-game two-team playoff? Isn't that still just one game between two teams that are selected by polls and computers?

In this system yes. The top two teams in the BCS Standings meet in the BCS Championship Game. Pre-1998 this did not happen if one of the top two "ranked" teams were from the Big Ten or PAC 10. Pre-1992 this almost never happened and the top ranked teams all played in separate bowls. At least now there is an effort to match up the top two ranked teams. Yes, we can debate how they are selected, how it is a sham, how rankings are meaningless, etc. But at least there's an effort to match up two deserving teams. What I would like to see is an effort to match up more than two deserving teams as a next step and then see what happens from there.

Good chat.

[Blue Hen]

Terrible idea....your 8 team beauty contest.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Terrible idea for sure. If GatorGrad is wrong, which is a near certainty, an 8-team BCS playoff system would be a disaster for NCAA football.

[GatorGrad]

I agree that kocurt's 8-team BCS playoff system would not be ideal...but as long as an NCAA Playoff isn't happening and we are forced as fans to watch the BCS run the show, I would prefer kocurt's 8-team BCS playoff it over the current BCS system as at least you're giving more deserving teams a chance than they do now with just two teams. Teams like Utah '04 and Boise State '06 would have had a chance to play for a BCS Title. If forced to choose a lesser of two evils, I would rather enjoy an 8-team post-season tournament over what we have right now.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Of course the BCS would allow teams like '04 Utah and '06 Boise to compete for the meaningless BCS title, because pigs really do fly.

[Jim]

Of course the BCS would allow teams like '04 Utah and '06 Boise to compete for the meaningless BCS title, because pigs really do fly.

Utes probably headed to either the Fiesta Bowl or Sugar Bowl.

[GatorGrad]

Of course the BCS would allow teams like '04 Utah and '06 Boise to compete for the meaningless BCS title, because pigs really do fly.

In kocurt's 8-team BCS playoff described above, they absolutely would have qualified since they finished in the top 8 of the BCS standings. And Utah would qualify this year and Boise St (currently #9 in the BCS standings) would be one upset away from qualifying as well. Which is one reason why I would prefer such a system over the current one.

As it stands now, we could potentially have the following:

Unbeaten Utah
Unbeaten Boise State
One loss Alabama
One loss Florida
One loss Texas
One loss Oklahoma
One loss Texas Tech
One loss Penn State
One loss USC

I know I would enjoy a BCS playoff consisting of 8 of these solid teams much more than picking 2 teams and leaving the others out. And this is coming from a fan of a team that stands to benefit from the current system, as one of the two chosen teams, should the Gators win out.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

If kocurt so advises, the BCS will, gleefully or otherwise, allow a non-BCS team to compete for the BCS championship? Only in la-la land.

What if you (and kocurt) devoted a fraction of the time and effort to advocating for what you know to be is right, fair and proper? Your operating premise is that "it isn't going to happen". I call that wimpy and self-defeating.

The Berlin Wall fell because Ronald Reagan wouldn't accept the conventional wisdom that "it isn't going to happen".

[GatorGrad]

If kocurt so advises, the BCS will, gleefully or otherwise, allow a non-BCS team to compete for the BCS championship? Only in la-la land.

The question here is whether or not kocurt's hypothetical 8-team BCS playoff, using only BCS rankings with no auto bids for BCS conference champs, would include non-BCS teams. Considering that Utah '04 and '08, and Boise State '06 did/will easily finish in the top 8 of the BCS standings, the answer to that question would be yes. Whether or not the BCS would actually ever expand to an 8-team BCS playoff to allow such a thing is another debate and not relevant to the question of what kocurt's proposal would accomplish. What the hypothetical proposal would accomplish and whether or not it would ever actually happen are two different things.

What if you (and kocurt) devoted a fraction of the time and effort to advocating for what you know to be is right, fair and proper? Your operating premise is that "it isn't going to happen". I call that wimpy and self-defeating.

I do devote a fraction of my time and effort advocating an NCAA 16-team NCAA Playoff. I've been pretty outspoken here over the years that it would be my preferred format. That is why I enjoy discussing ways that we could move closer and closer in that direction over time. And when I say that it isn't going to happen anytime soon, well that's just being realistic given everything I have heard and read over the years. Which is why I hope for constant change that would ultimately lead to the "slippery slope" that BCS officials are afraid of...which would someday result in a real playoff. I'm on your side, Herd Fan. We both ultimately want the same thing. It's the "how do we get there" question where we differ.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

The question here is whether or not kocurt's hypothetical 8-team BCS playoff, using only BCS rankings with no auto bids for BCS conference champs, would include non-BCS teams.No it isn't. The question is whether the BCS would ever permit a non-BCS team to have an opportunity to compete for a BCS pretend championship, which it won't. With sufficient public pressure, the BCS might accept a 4-team playoff because it is next-to-impossible for a non-BCS team, no matter how deserving, to crack the top-4.

I do devote a fraction of my time and effort advocating an NCAA 16-team NCAA Playoff.You are actually undermining the chances for an NCAA-administered 16-team playoff system, for the purpose, as you say, of your personal enjoyment.

[GatorGrad]

Herd - Here is what you said a few posts ago:

"A four or eight team BCS playoff system is more likely to accomplish two things, (1) take the public pressure heat off the BCS and (2) exclude deserving non-BCS teams from an opportunity to compete for a national championship."

Excuse me for thinking that we were debating whether or not an 8-team BCS playoff would include deserving nonBCS teams...especially after kocurt posted a hypothetical proposal of using straight up BCS rankings with no conference auto-bids for an 8-team BCS playoff. I then explained, as a response to your above quote, how such a system would actually include several deserving nonBCS teams, and now you want to change the topic and question whether or not the BCS would ever actually run an 8-team tournament in the first place. Again, those are two different debates.

Either way, whether the BCS ultimately maxes out at a 4 or 8 team playoff, I would prefer either to the setup that we have now as long as we were forced to watch the BCS run the show. If you are right, and the BCS maxes out at a 4-team playoff, that would be preferred by me over the current system that only involves two teams for no reason other than it would be involving more teams and IMO, get us closer to the slippery slope that would ultimately lead to a legit playoff someday.

Again, I would prefer an NCAA 16-team playoff over any of this.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Keeping the heat on the BCS (and the NCAA) is the best way to force change. It was public pressure that forced the BCS to cave-in and allow a non-BCS team to play in a BCS bowl (other than the BCS "championship" game).

It makes not a whit of difference what you and kocurt dream up. There is no chance that the BCS would adopt your 8-team playoff idea, because it would never be so foolish as to allow a non-BCS conference team to compete for the BCS "championship". The BCS might be able to stave off public pressure for a while with a 4-team playoff.

If you truly desire an NCAA 16-team playoff, then you should end this silly charade and become an outspoken proponent for an NCAA playoff. The simplest and quickest solution is for the NCAA to develop and implement such a playoff system now, without compelling a dissolution of the BCS, and let the free market decide which playoff system should survive.

[GatorGrad]

OK, so you agree that an 8-team BCS playoff, as decribed by kocurt, would be able to include nonBCS teams. With that out of the way, good points about putting pressure on the BCS and them going as far as a four-team playoff to stave off public pressure.

So...regarding your solution of the NCAA implementing their own playoff system right now to compete with the BCS...why do you suppose this has not happened?

[CJHawkeyes]

What is actually being debated here? Gator Grad cannot favor an improvement over the current system unless it he gets everything he desires for college football at once?

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

How about this, GatorGrad, as another exercise in silliness just to illustrate how inane your argument is.

My proposal: an 8-team BCS championship playoff with all 8 teams coming from non-BCS conferences. Do you agree that an 8-team BCS playoff, as decribed by FHF, would be able to include eight non-BCS teams?

[GatorGrad]

Huh? What "inane" argument are you even referring to? I'm not even trying to argue with you. All I was pointing out was that an 8-team BCS Playoff based on BCS rankings alone would in fact allow nonBCS teams to participate. I referenced the Utah and Boise State teams as examples of teams that would have qualified under such a system. I then went on with your point that expanding past four teams would be unlikely and asked for your opinion as to why the NCAA does not do what you think it should do. Yet you respond to my serious question with another question, one that you admit is an "exercise in silliness?" You are an interesting message board poster.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

My inane question was an exercise in silliness that mirrored your inane question that was an exercise in silliness, GatorGrad.

That the NCAA has not developed a national championship playoff doesn't mean that it won't. U.S. presidents before Reagan wanted the Berlin Wall torn down. Even though Reagan forced the issue, the wall didn't actually come down until a few months after his presidency.

It doesn't help the NCAA when naysayers construct gimmicky schemes that would at best serve to take the public pressure heat off of the BCS. If you really want to help, then you should do your part to force the issue by advocating for an NCAA championship playoff, instead of the goofy notion that you and kocurt have divined.

[GatorGrad]

My inane question was an exercise in silliness that mirrored your inane question that was an exercise in silliness, GatorGrad.

What inane question of mine?

That the NCAA has not developed a national championship playoff doesn't mean that it won't. U.S. presidents before Reagan wanted the Berlin Wall torn down. Even though Reagan forced the issue, the wall didn't actually come down until a few months after his presidency.

So again I ask...why do you think the NCAA has not yet developed a playoff system?

It doesn't help the NCAA when naysayers construct gimmicky schemes that would at best serve to take the public pressure heat off of the BCS.

So you think that fans like us discussing this on some random website message board has any impact whatsoever on what actually happens?

If you really want to help, then you should do your part to force the issue by advocating for an NCAA championship playoff, instead of the goofy notion that you and kocurt have divined.

Me advocating for an NCAA Playoff here on this message board is going to "force the issue?" So I can't discuss ways that I would like to see the current BCS improved without damaging our chances of ever seeing an NCAA Playoff? I appreciate the credit you're giving me, really I do. But I think you're giving me a little too much credit.

BTW, I didn't come up with kocurt's 8-team BCS proposal...kocurt did. All I did was point out to you how a deserving nonBCS team could qualify given the hypothetical format he described.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

1. My inane question was identical to your inane question, except for changing the number of non-BCS teams.

2. Why didn't the Gorbachev and the East Germans tear down the Berlin Wall in 1988? Or 1987? There wasn't enough pressure on Gorby and the East Germans before then. Similarly, there isn't sufficient pressure on the NCAA yet -- in a very tiny measure because of you and kocurt.

3. Public opinion can impact decisions. That is why the BCS caved in and allowed a non-BCS school to participate in a BCS bowl.

4. See above.

[Blue Hen]

I thought #3 was because of a lawsuit threat moreso than public opinion

[GatorGrad]

1. My inane question was identical to your inane question, except for changing the number of non-BCS teams.

Again I ask...which "inane question" did I ask? All I was doing was pointing out to you that under kocurt's hypothetical 8-team BCS Playoff, nonBCS teams such as Utah '04, Boise St '06, and Utah '08 would have qualified.

2. Why didn't the Gorbachev and the East Germans tear down the Berlin Wall in 1988? Or 1987? There wasn't enough pressure on Gorby and the East Germans before then. Similarly, there isn't sufficient pressure on the NCAA yet -- in a very tiny measure because of you and kocurt.

To be fair, I think I have campaigned plenty, on this board and elsewhere, for a 16-team NCAA Playoff. I've said over and over again that it's my preferred format. What more should I do? Do you really think that me also discussing ways that the BCS could improve, whether it be by expanding the field or using objective rules, is going to slow down momentum for a future NCAA Playoff? The thought that me, kocurt, or anyone else here has any direct impact on what actually happens is comical. You give us too much credit. Do you know how many college football fans have been clamoring for a playoff for years and years? So we should not discuss ways to make the current BCS that we're forced to live with better? That's funny.

3. Public opinion can impact decisions. That is why the BCS caved in and allowed a non-BCS school to participate in a BCS bowl.

See Hen's post above.

[GatorGrad]

Here's a good article today on this subject from Stewart Mandel of SI.com:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/11/24/bcs.trouble/index.html

"As I've stated a number of times, we have the best regular season in football," Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said Monday. "... My fear is if we ever went to even a four-team playoff -- and that would probably go to eight and 16 -- we would be sitting here 10 years from now talking about why we did that and the effect it had on the regular season."

That quote is another example / reason for why I still hope for a 4 or 8 team playoff...

[CJHawkeyes]

I thought #3 was because of a lawsuit threat moreso than public opinion

It was the threat of a lawsuit. I see more people complain about nonBCS teams being in BCS games. Therefore, I doubt there was any public pressure.

[CJHawkeyes]

Here's a good article today on this subject from Stewart Mandel of SI.com:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/11/24/bcs.trouble/index.html

"As I've stated a number of times, we have the best regular season in football," Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said Monday. "... My fear is if we ever went to even a four-team playoff -- and that would probably go to eight and 16 -- we would be sitting here 10 years from now talking about why we did that and the effect it had on the regular season."

That quote is another example / reason for why I still hope for a 4 or 8 team playoff...

10 years into a playoff, we would be wondering why we didn't do it sooner. This belief that the regular season would be diminished is absurd. For starters, 11 of 16 berths would belong to conference champions. How would conference races matter less if they came with a playoff berth? Don't win your conference, then you have be in the top five among 109 teams. Based on my idea, I count 31 teams that are still alive. Seven auto bids are still undecided. With the current system, how many games in the last two weeks "count"?

[Blue Hen]

10 years`later nobody would miss computers and poll voters deciding Big time CF's championship...GUARANTEED !

[CJHawkeyes]

10 years`later nobody would miss computers and poll voters deciding Big time CF's championship...GUARANTEED !


Stop picking on "computers". :D

[Blue Hen]

Ok. Those systems are clearly the lesser of two evils.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

Ironically, I suspect that the BCS understands that there is more money to be made with an NCAA championship system. It is more about power, control and egos.

[CJHawkeyes]

Ok. Those systems are clearly the lesser of two evils.

"Computers" are good. Actually, there are no computers. Just different ideas for weighing on-field results for the purpose of placing teams in a competition.:D