Watching Ore.St. upset USC last night got me thinking about the current BCS system versus a playoff like 1-AA has. I was on the edge of my seat as the Beavers held onto their lead going into the final minutes. If I knew there was going to be a playoff and all USC had to do was get in and THEN turn it up a notch,it wouldn't have been nearly as exciting.You knew a loss to Ore.St. could end USC's chance at a national title,even though it was an early season game against a non-ranked opponent. That's one of the things I love about college football,the whole regular season is a playoff. It's the only sport like that. I know the BCS system isn't perfect,but I would miss that weekly intensity if they ever go to a playoff.

... Unless you're Michigan (they went to the Rose Bowl last year. Seriously!) or one of the other perennial favorites that depend on historical performance rather than current year performance. If you're not one of the teams everybody always has a crush on, you have no chance.

An 8-team playoff, as many propose, still means that most teams have no chance, but it can ensure that the best of those 8 teams wins, rather than the best of the top two whom the media / vague computer formula hearts.

Michigan went to the Capital One Bowl and beat Florida last year. An 8 team playoff wouldn't cut it,IMO. As you say,most teams would still have no chance and we would lose the weekly drama that we now have. I'm open to alternatives to the current bowl system,but I've yet to hear one that is better than what we have now. Maybe a plus one?

Illinois went the Rose Bowl last year. Seriously!

I like the BCS, there have been some incredible games that have been created...Including all-time classics like USC-Texas and Boise-Oklahoma. Texas-Michigan in the '04 Rose Bowl was another incredible game. You don't have those matchups under the old bowl system, so it's a definite improvement. I like the current system, but...I'd like to see a conference rating system...Maybe the #1 rated conference AUTOMATICALLY gets the winner of their conference championship game into the BCS title game. I think a Plus One system would work too, having one last game a week after all the bowl games to establish the national champion. I think everyone would love an eight team playoff as well. I don't know what the answer is so I just enjoy the good games that I get to watch.

As for the rest, I don't think many people have a "crush" on Hawaii, they played in a BCS bowl. You think West Virginia is a perennial favorite??? They were in position to moonwalk into the national championship game, but got upset by Pitt in the last game of the season. Same thing with "historical football programs" Kansas and Missouri, who BOTH had chances to win their way into the title game, and BOTH lost. The system works if you win. People like to bitch about the system after their team loses. THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA could've played in the national championship last season if they won all their games, as they were #2 in the initial BCS rankings. So what, exactly, are you saying???

I love the current setup because it does place a major pressure on teams to show up every week. You can't go on the road anymore in college football and expect to win an "easy" game, especially in-conference. Oregon St has proved that to USC each of the last three games in Corvalis. The USC-Ohio State game, and the Alabama-Georgia game are essentially PLAYOFF games in the 2nd and 3rd week of the season. I personally think it's great.

Good post. Why do we need a playoff, when we can just randomly pick a 2 loss team to play for the title?

The entire regular season is like a playoffs. You can't lose can only lose once can lose only 2 times all season and still get "selected" to play for a title!

Last year was a weird year with all the upsets. I think you will see the NC have 2 undefeated teams this year or maybe one undefeated & one/ one loss team which is fine. No matter what you do, it is never going to satisfy every school. I used to be for a playoff, but you know what, I kinda like the bowl system the way it is currently setup. The only thing I think they should add is a plus one game. I think that would solve alot of the problems. Take the top 4 teams from the bcs ranking, play one vs four & 2 vs three & then have an added game. Take the 4 bcs bowls now(sugar, orange, rose, fiesta) & just rotate them every year so 3 out of the four each year are in on the 4 team playoff(2 in the semi finals & one in the championship). Play the 2 semifinal games on New Years day & play the final a week later(Jan 8th). You could even add another BCS Bowl(Cotton or Peach) to make up for the 2 teams that are being left out under this idea. I really do not see what problems this would cause & why it has not been voted in yet.

Agreed, good post. I feel the same way you do, and I think the +1 holds onto some great Bowl traditions, while allowing for a reasonable national championship on the field.

The bold part...You're never going to satisfy every school, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY LOSE!! The system works when teams win. When teams lose, they like to bitch about the system. In 2003, Auburn ran the table and was left out of the NC, because USC and OU both ran the table as well. That's where the +1 would be perfect.

So, to you guys above, what happens when you have a single 1-loss team and a slew of 2 loss teams, kinda like last season? I can see giving a pass to a really good 1 loss team that may just have "stumbled," but any 2 loss team shows some weaknesses. Every year i root for either the above, or an even better scenario, one where you have a ton of 2 loss teams and no team with 1 loss.

And what the hell is "bowl tradition" anyway? Just because you've been doing something a long time doesn't mean its good or right. It simply means you are afraid of change, or in the case of the BCS conferences, you simply want to guarantee your 8 figure payday. The "bowl tradition" isn't about some great long standing process in college football. Its a great way for big schools to further line their pockets and make sure the small schools stay that way.

Right back atcha...What happens to your 8-team or 16-team playoff when you have two teams with one loss, and 16 others with two losses? How do you decide who gets in??? What if one school goes undefeated? They get punished for a perfect regular season by having to play three or four playoff games against teams who "stumbled" twice, or have shown some weaknesses?



I always laugh at the "big schools holding down the small schools" argument. Every team is on TV nowadays. Every team gets that ESPN money, and you can go to any school (Troy St.) and become a 1st round NFL draft pick. The reason the best teams are always the best teams is because they get the best players!!! The best players want to play somewhere with a rich history, a tradition of success, the best facilities, and a track record for putting players into the pros. That's just the way it is. A playoff would only reinforce the same Texas, USC, Ohio St, LSU dominance every year. Boise State aside, the VAST MAJORITY of the David vs. Goliath matchups would end up like Hawaii-Georgia last year: Unfair.

By the way, BCS bowl money is distributed throughout the conference. So when LSU wins the Sugar Bowl, Vandy and Kentucky get a piece of that $17 million also. Washington State benefits from USC going to the Rose Bowl. There's 65 teams in the BCS conferences. That's more than half the schools in Division 1-A. The "big schools" are holding down the "little schools" because the best players would rather play for LSU than Kentucky, or Toledo for that matter.

And last time I checked, there were 20+ bowls outside of the BCS and top-tier bowls, for the "little schools" to line their pockets. What happens to those games, in a playoff system? Like I said, it will only INCREASE the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Easy. 6 BCS conference champions = 6 playoff berths. Hand out the 2 remaining at large bids as they do now.

If someone is really that good that they can go undefeated, then they should have no trouble against the weaker 2-loss teams in the playoff tournament.

Its simple:

1.Get rid of the 4th OOC game
2. All BCS conferences must hold a conference championship game.
3. 6 winners get in, hand out 2 at large bids.

The 9th place team have much less of an argument than the 3rd place team who missed out on the national title because "the writers" thought they werent as good before a single game had been played.

So what about your "big boys lining their pockets at the expense of the small schools" righteousness? How does this system above make that better, and not worse? The conference championship games are the BIGGEST single money grab of the last decade, and that big money stays within the power conferences.

Also, in your system, why would USC and Ohio State EVER play each other in the regular season? All you have to do is win your conference to make the playoffs. Why do you want to risk another loss (and risk losing an at-large bid) in case you stumble in a conference game? And if they did play, why would it matter, and what would make people tune in??? It was essentially a PLAYOFF game this year. In your system, the loser would say, "Ho-hum, see you in the tournament."

By the way, "the writers" have no say in the current BCS set up. The AP poll is its own entity.

College football has NEVER been more popular. EVER. The money is the biggest it's ever been. The ratings are the best they've ever been. The regular season matters more than it ever has. Why mess with a good thing? Add the Plus 1 game and be done with it.

Your silence is deafening ramius. No answers, huh? Just snarky comments in the baseball forum. Boy, I can't wait until your system is implemented, and we get to watch all the BCS schools schedule ONLY home games against a bunch of 1-AA dogs for their non-conference games. It's all just preseason until the conference games start, right?

Think your "ideas" through before your brain just spews them out.

"It's disgusting that the big schools line their pockets at the expense of the small schools. So my idea is to have the six biggest conferences play big-money championship games to get automatic bids to my playoff system."

Snarky begats snarky, it seems.



Everyone play nice now. No problem w/ the difference of opinions (I don't agree w/ any of you), but there's also no need to try to stuff your own opinions down the throats of everyone else.

Scheduling only OOC home games against 1-AA opponents? Sounds an awful lot like the current SEC today.

By giving more credence to the conference games on the schedule, a team would not have to worry about losing a big time game against an out of conference opponent. A team like Texas could play USC, Ohio St, and Georgia as their OOC games, lose all 3, and they still win the Big 12 to make the 1-A playoffs. By awarding the conference title winners a playoff spot, winning all of the conference games would still matter, so your asinine theory of "every game is like a playoff game" would still hold water. It would make the season simpler. Play who you wish in the OOC games, and then win your conference.

As for the spots, you give 6 to the BCS conferences, and maybe give a 7th to the best non-BCS school. For the final playoff spot, i dont know what to do exactly. Perhaps use the same BCS system, just eliminate any outsides polls from being included. Sure there would be fights, like there are in college basketball. But teams have a lot less to stand on when you can tell them, "you should have won your conference," as opposed to "well, ummm, we know you are unbeaten, but you ummm should have been ranked higher by the polls in the preseason," like Auburn in 2003.

As for your every game is a playoff arguement, it holds no water. You lose and you aren't out, because other teams will lose and let you back in. I dont see how you can support as ass backwards system that rewards/punishes teams for not who they lost to, but when they lost. UF lost to ole miss, but they have all the chances in the world to climb back into the title hunt. But, had UF lost to ole miss in november instead of september, their title hopes would be all but dead. How does that make any sense?

As for the money, hat is all that matters. The BCS teams have a strangle hold on the title game, ensuring that 2 of them will always be playing for the title in any given year, thereby maximizing their revenues. It might not be a conscious effort to keep the little school down, but it is a conscious effort to keep their own pockets lined over a fair and just way to determine a winner. Take Boise St a few years back. Everyone in the world would have loved to see them advance and see if they could take out the next team in a playoff. Maybe they continue their run and win the national title. Would have been fun to watch. But, Nope. The BCS conferences don't want the little school anywhere near the top. So they try to placate the small school with a BCS bowl game and some cash, but no real opportunity.

And if you are so concerned with the small schools making it, then expand it to a 16 team playoff and give all 11 conference winners a seed. They the top 5 BCS winners can enjoy an easy first round game against the lower schools.

The "every game is a playoff argument" does hold some water. That was the point of my original post. Ore.St. defeating USC MAY end up knocking them out of a title shot. It may not if others lose,but at this point we don't know that. Watching that game was like watching a playoff game in terms of the intensity. In 1-A college ball you need to win EVERY week to assure your chance at a title. And cool your attitude a little,bro. Nobody ever said they had all the answers. We're all college football fans here just having a little discussion.

If "every game was like a playoff game" then a loss would eliminate said team from title contention, when in fact, it doesn't. Just because teams need to win doesn't make every game "like a playoff game" That is one of the most asinine arguments against a playoff. Tell me, in the other sports, such as NCAA basketball, is the regular season meaningless because they have a playoff?

The regular season means MUCH more in NCAA football than it does in NCAA basketball. That's my whole point. Say Michigan is playing Nortwestern in football,Michigan is 8-0 Northwestern is 3-5. Michigan is highly ranked and recognized as a possble national champion. At 3-5 Nortwestern obviously is not ranked,yet Michigan can't afford a letdown. A loss to Northwestern at this point would probably ruin any title chance. Michigan fans watch the game knowing a loss here is like losing a playoff game. Northwestern fans watch the game knowing even though they're not in title contention, a victory is huge as it knocks Michigan out of the championship picture. Fans on both sides are pumped. In basketball this game is a bore,as fans on both sides know all Michigan has to do is make the tournament and this game is forgotten. The importance of the regular season,on a week to week basis,in college footbal is not matched by any other sport. Every game,every week is important. I know the current system has flaws. Show me a system that corrects those flaws without killing that weekly intensity and I'll agree with you.

The problem is that if Michigan loses to northwestern in november, their title hopes are shot. But if that same michigan team loses to that same northwestern team in september, all is forgotten by the time november rolls around and michigan is back atop the polls. What sense does that make? Not to mention the discrepancies among the polls, like a ohio st team losing to a #1 USC team and dropping spots, while some big name teams lose last week, yet only drop 6-7 spots. How exactly does previous performance tell us how good a team currently is?

You are correct. Sometimes. It all depends on if others also lose a game or two. Some years undefeated teams meet in the championship game,and any loss,any time sinks you. The late loss compared to the early loss and how that effects the season is definitely one of the flaws of the current system.But do you understand me on the point of my original post? The USC/Ore.St. game,while not a true playoff game,had the intensity of one due to the fact that it MAY kill USC's title chances. The USC fans knew it,the Ore.St. fans knew it, and the atmosphere in that stadium was charged because of it. IMO,a playoff like the one used by 1-AA,would take most of that drama out of the regular season. What about some sort of Plus One? Most years one additional game would pretty much stop the arguing over who should be national champion.

I disagree with this. In any tourney system, I assume the polls would be kept intact, a la College Hockey and Bball. The intensity was due to the fact that a #1 team was coming into an opponents' house, always a cause for intensity for the home team. When Duke visits Wake Forest, with Duke being #1 and WF being unranked, there is no doubt an intensity, although a loss for Duke would not knock them out of title contention. I think intense games would remain intense due to the ranking and the rivalry aspects. Also, who's to say a loss wouldn't knock USC out of playoff contention rather than championship? Is that not as important?

It would be much less likely that a loss to an unranked opponent would knock them out of a playoff. As long as they won their conference they would be in,in most playoff models. The comparison to NCAA basketball is a good one. I don't want the football regular season to become like the basketball regular season. With the exception of rivalry games,unless you are a hardcore basketball fan it's pretty boring.We're all just waiting for the tournament. Because of the pressure to win every week the intensity of the NCAA regular season in unmatched.

I see your point, but the paucity of regular season college football games necessitates a crapload of rivalry games, no? Going by BC's schedule, there are 12 games in the season, 8 of which are conference games. 75% of games would be rivalry games, and if we were to get rid of one out of conference game to make room for the playoffs, then there would be only 3 boring games per year.
Also, you are correct that it would be much less likely an unranked would knock USC, or any big team, out of a playoff, but it would also ratchet up every conference game thereafter- USC would not be able to afford to lose another conference game, lest they miss out on a conference title, therefore keeping them out of the playoffs.
In my mind, the issue for a playoff is that it is the most equitable system when there are so few games played. I feel that the relationship between games and knowing which teams are the best is direct- ie, the fewer games played, the less we know which teams are the best. The more games played, the more we know which teams are the best. Since CFB is the sport with the fewest amount of games, I think it needs a playoff.

You make good points.What do you think of a Plus One type system?

I think a Plus One would be a good compromise for now, but I still prefer a playoff system that includes all the BCS conference championship winners- it think that system would leave the least amount of room for complaints, would be the most fair system, and increase the intensity of all conference games, which I agree with you is important. Seeing a Plus One in action, I believe, would be a step in the direction to a larger playoff. I think a Plus One should be instituted, though, if there is trepidation about revamping the whole system to an 8 team playoff.

I don't like the 8 team playoff in most examples I've seen because of the at large bids. A team like USC could lose their conference,possibly have even 2 losses and still make the tournament over,say, the WAC champ. Just to throw an idea out there,why not every 1-A conference champ automatically gets into the tournament? In addition there could be 1 or 2 at large bids. I imagine the problem would be the amount of games that would have to be played. Could anybody come up with way to make that work?

You're right that the 8 team leaves room for more complaining, especially by the non big conference teams. If they could even drop two ooc games, then I think you're idea of including all champs plus 2 at large's would be the best. Now, I don't know about the $ aspect or feasibility in terms of students' academic schedules , but I think it would be the most fair and most exciting.

I do like the Plus One idea, take the top 4 teams, use the current major bowls and rotate. Yes, you will have arguments about who is in that top 4, but less than who is in the top 2. The system has worked ok the last couple of years, but remember undefeated Auburn a couple years back, or having to watch Oklahoma get pounded by USC when LSU-USC was the game everyone wanted to see? Plus One deals with that problem pretty nicely.