Its Bowl Season...

[Jon]

My random thoughts:

 

-A 4-team playoff doesn't reduce the controversy. It just keeps the controversy while also including probably one team that doesn't belong there.

 

-A larger playoff system creates too large of a recruiting advantage for the big name programs. If recruits think they can get a better chance to play 2 or 3 more games than other schools because that school would be more likely to be invited to the playoffs, that's pretty big.

 

-The fundamental flaw in college football is having both meaningful polls and a championship game. Polls are used to vote for the "best" team. A championship is about winning a title, not about being the best team (that goes for any sport). If you want to keep the polls, what's the point of a championship? If you want a championship game, why have a top-25 ranking?

[goonys evil twin]

My random thoughts:

 

-A 4-team playoff doesn't reduce the controversy. It just keeps the controversy while also including probably one team that doesn't belong there.

 

-A larger playoff system creates too large of a recruiting advantage for the big name programs. If recruits think they can get a better chance to play 2 or 3 more games than other schools because that school would be more likely to be invited to the playoffs, that's pretty big.

 

-The fundamental flaw in college football is having both meaningful polls and a championship game. Polls are used to vote for the "best" team. A championship is about winning a title, not about being the best team (that goes for any sport). If you want to keep the polls, what's the point of a championship? If you want a championship game, why have a top-25 ranking?

 

Basketball has a top 25 ranking and a championship game. That's not a fundamental flaw. The rankings are used to determine who gets to play the game, and the game determines who the champ is.

 

A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy, but it certainly reduces it. If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents. The biggest problem with a large playoff is there is no motivation to schedule meaningful out of conference regular season games. The regular season is still the bread and butter of CFB, and I think it should remain so.

 

I think it will change with a +1 game, then a playoff. The BCS setup was the first step in the gradual transformation away from voting for champs and playing for champs. A 4 or possibly 8 team playoff is the inevitable end. Anything larger than that would be absurd.

[Derwood]

My random thoughts:

 

-A 4-team playoff doesn't reduce the controversy. It just keeps the controversy while also including probably one team that doesn't belong there.

 

-A larger playoff system creates too large of a recruiting advantage for the big name programs. If recruits think they can get a better chance to play 2 or 3 more games than other schools because that school would be more likely to be invited to the playoffs, that's pretty big.

 

-The fundamental flaw in college football is having both meaningful polls and a championship game. Polls are used to vote for the "best" team. A championship is about winning a title, not about being the best team (that goes for any sport). If you want to keep the polls, what's the point of a championship? If you want a championship game, why have a top-25 ranking?

 

Basketball has a top 25 ranking and a championship game. That's not a fundamental flaw. The rankings are used to determine who gets to play the game, and the game determines who the champ is.

 

A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy, but it certainly reduces it. If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents. The biggest problem with a large playoff is there is no motivation to schedule meaningful out of conference regular season games. The regular season is still the bread and butter of CFB, and I think it should remain so.

 

I think it will change with a +1 game, then a playoff. The BCS setup was the first step in the gradual transformation away from voting for champs and playing for champs. A 4 or possibly 8 team playoff is the inevitable end. Anything larger than that would be absurd.

 

Eliminates the controversy? What if you have a situation (like this year) where there is one major conference undefeated team followed by a run of 1-loss teams. How do you justify these 3 1-loss teams over these other 3 1-loss teams? The preseason polls and voter bias suddenly reward some and screw others

[goonys evil twin]

A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy' date=' but it certainly reduces it. [b']If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4[/b]. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents.

 

Eliminates the controversy? What if you have a situation (like this year) where there is one major conference undefeated team followed by a run of 1-loss teams. How do you justify these 3 1-loss teams over these other 3 1-loss teams? The preseason polls and voter bias suddenly reward some and screw others

 

Selective reading? It eliminates the controversy from the top 4. That means the 3rd and 4th ranked teams that were bitching, will not be bitching because they'd be in. If you're 5th, too bad. No matter how far down you go, people will complain. There are idiots who complain about not getting into the basketball tourney, or about not getting a high enough seed, or easy enough bracket. None of that is meaningful. There is only one surefire way to guarantee a chance at the title, that is, schedule tough games and win them all. If you go undefeated but don't play anybody, it's your own fault. If you lose in the middle of the year to a tough opponent and end up on the outside looking in, too bad. That's how you keep the regular season meaningful. That's how you reward greatness. That's how you determine a college football champion.

[Jon]

My random thoughts:

 

-A 4-team playoff doesn't reduce the controversy. It just keeps the controversy while also including probably one team that doesn't belong there.

 

-A larger playoff system creates too large of a recruiting advantage for the big name programs. If recruits think they can get a better chance to play 2 or 3 more games than other schools because that school would be more likely to be invited to the playoffs, that's pretty big.

 

-The fundamental flaw in college football is having both meaningful polls and a championship game. Polls are used to vote for the "best" team. A championship is about winning a title, not about being the best team (that goes for any sport). If you want to keep the polls, what's the point of a championship? If you want a championship game, why have a top-25 ranking?

 

Basketball has a top 25 ranking and a championship game. That's not a fundamental flaw. The rankings are used to determine who gets to play the game, and the game determines who the champ is.

 

A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy, but it certainly reduces it. If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents. The biggest problem with a large playoff is there is no motivation to schedule meaningful out of conference regular season games. The regular season is still the bread and butter of CFB, and I think it should remain so.

 

I think it will change with a +1 game, then a playoff. The BCS setup was the first step in the gradual transformation away from voting for champs and playing for champs. A 4 or possibly 8 team playoff is the inevitable end. Anything larger than that would be absurd.

The basketball top 25 isn't as important during the season and is meaningless once the tournament starts. Not so for college football, where the poll is still seen as important after the season ends. And the basketball poll doesn't fully determine seeding.

 

I don't think it really reduces it. You'll have more teams claiming they deserved a spot in the 4-team playoff. It could be said that such controversy would be better than it is now, but you'll still have more of it.

 

With that said, there's always going to be more controversy in college football than in any other sport.

[Derwood]

A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy' date=' but it certainly reduces it. [b']If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4[/b]. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents.

 

Eliminates the controversy? What if you have a situation (like this year) where there is one major conference undefeated team followed by a run of 1-loss teams. How do you justify these 3 1-loss teams over these other 3 1-loss teams? The preseason polls and voter bias suddenly reward some and screw others

 

Selective reading? It eliminates the controversy from the top 4. That means the 3rd and 4th ranked teams that were bitching, will not be bitching because they'd be in. If you're 5th, too bad. No matter how far down you go, people will complain. There are idiots who complain about not getting into the basketball tourney, or about not getting a high enough seed, or easy enough bracket. None of that is meaningful. There is only one surefire way to guarantee a chance at the title, that is, schedule tough games and win them all. If you go undefeated but don't play anybody, it's your own fault. If you lose in the middle of the year to a tough opponent and end up on the outside looking in, too bad. That's how you keep the regular season meaningful. That's how you reward greatness. That's how you determine a college football champion.

 

There just isn't a surefire way to fairly determine who the #3 and #4 teams are.

 

And how do you say "too bad you played no one" to Boise St.? Is it their fault that their conference sucks?

[goonys evil twin]

The basketball top 25 isn't as important during the season and is meaningless once the tournament starts. Not so for college football, where the poll is still seen as important after the season ends. And the basketball poll doesn't fully determine seeding.

 

It might be seen as important after the season ends, but it's not. The system determines the seeds, not just the polls. Is that system any better or worse than the back door shenanigans used by the committee that seeds the basketball tournament?

 

I don't think it really reduces it. You'll have more teams claiming they deserved a spot in the 4-team playoff. It could be said that such controversy would be better than it is now, but you'll still have more of it.

 

With that said, there's always going to be more controversy in college football than in any other sport.

 

It reduces meaningful controversy. The bulk of the complaints came from the 3rd/4th spots. Those who are left out are always going to think they are being screwed over, but by and large, when you are left out of the picture, it's your own fault. You either lost a game you should have won or you scheduled a crap schedule.

[CubColtPacer]

My random thoughts:

 

-A 4-team playoff doesn't reduce the controversy. It just keeps the controversy while also including probably one team that doesn't belong there.

 

-A larger playoff system creates too large of a recruiting advantage for the big name programs. If recruits think they can get a better chance to play 2 or 3 more games than other schools because that school would be more likely to be invited to the playoffs, that's pretty big.

 

-The fundamental flaw in college football is having both meaningful polls and a championship game. Polls are used to vote for the "best" team. A championship is about winning a title, not about being the best team (that goes for any sport). If you want to keep the polls, what's the point of a championship? If you want a championship game, why have a top-25 ranking?

 

Basketball has a top 25 ranking and a championship game. That's not a fundamental flaw. The rankings are used to determine who gets to play the game, and the game determines who the champ is.

 

A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy, but it certainly reduces it. If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents. The biggest problem with a large playoff is there is no motivation to schedule meaningful out of conference regular season games. The regular season is still the bread and butter of CFB, and I think it should remain so.

 

I think it will change with a +1 game, then a playoff. The BCS setup was the first step in the gradual transformation away from voting for champs and playing for champs. A 4 or possibly 8 team playoff is the inevitable end. Anything larger than that would be absurd.

 

The one question I have is how does Boise State get these better opponents to schedule in order to break into the top 4? Top programs are going to want to have nothing to do with Boise for good reason. If Boise beats them, that's obviously bad news for a team like USC. If USC beats Boise, then Boise gets discredited because they have a loss and no good wins, and that of course doesn't make USC look good either. So there's absolutely no reason for a good team to put Boise on their schedule, and Boise then will never get a good game and will never get into the top 4. Their only chance is something like this year but a little better, for a team who was thought to be bad (Oregon State) turns out to be decent or even better.

[goonys evil twin]

There just isn't a surefire way to fairly determine who the #3 and #4 teams are.

 

And how do you say "too bad you played no one" to Boise St.? Is it their fault that their conference sucks?

 

There isn't a surefire way to solve the college football championship issue. My point is I don't really care if you're 5th and feel screwed. If it went to an 8 team playoff, #9 would feel screwed, and I'd care even less.

 

They choose to be in the conference they are in, and they schedule their own out of conference games. If you are willing to remain in a weak conference, then it's your own responsibility to get tough OOC games to make up for that weakness. It's not like this system was just sprung on them. This has been the case for years. And prior to the BCS, they wouldn't have even played in such a big bowl game as they did.

[Banedon]

There just isn't a surefire way to fairly determine who the #3 and #4 teams are.

 

And how do you say "too bad you played no one" to Boise St.? Is it their fault that their conference sucks?

 

There isn't a surefire way to solve the college football championship issue. My point is I don't really care if you're 5th and feel screwed. If it went to an 8 team playoff, #9 would feel screwed, and I'd care even less.

 

They choose to be in the conference they are in, and they schedule their own out of conference games. If you are willing to remain in a weak conference, then it's your own responsibility to get tough OOC games to make up for that weakness. It's not like this system was just sprung on them. This has been the case for years. And prior to the BCS, they wouldn't have even played in such a big bowl game as they did.

 

I think an 8 team playoff would have less chance to leave someone out that should be there though. Mid-major undefeateds are usually in the top 8 at least. Meanwhile Boise State went undefeated, won a BCS bowl game, and are still ranked 5th and would have missed any "playoff" scenario. Any team left out of an 8 team playoff almost assuredly has a loss.

 

It's not like Boise State can just go hop on over to a major conference or something. They're in the WAC because they've had to build their way to national significance. And they had to start winning some big games so they could start scheduling better opponents. Not everyone can be in a major conference. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opportunity at the Championship.

[BigSlick]

There just isn't a surefire way to fairly determine who the #3 and #4 teams are.

 

And how do you say "too bad you played no one" to Boise St.? Is it their fault that their conference sucks?

 

There isn't a surefire way to solve the college football championship issue. My point is I don't really care if you're 5th and feel screwed. If it went to an 8 team playoff, #9 would feel screwed, and I'd care even less.

 

They choose to be in the conference they are in, and they schedule their own out of conference games. If you are willing to remain in a weak conference, then it's your own responsibility to get tough OOC games to make up for that weakness. It's not like this system was just sprung on them. This has been the case for years. And prior to the BCS, they wouldn't have even played in such a big bowl game as they did.

 

I think an 8 team playoff would have less chance to leave someone out that should be there though. Mid-major undefeateds are usually in the top 8 at least. Meanwhile Boise State went undefeated, won a BCS bowl game, and are still ranked 5th and would have missed any "playoff" scenario. Any team left out of an 8 team playoff almost assuredly has a loss.

 

It's not like Boise State can just go hop on over to a major conference or something. They're in the WAC because they've had to build their way to national significance. And they had to start winning some big games so they could start scheduling better opponents. Not everyone can be in a major conference. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opportunity at the Championship.

 

Bottom line: Theres less of a commotion when a number 9 gets left out of the playoffs. They, obviously, have less of a chance of going all the way.

 

I think people have given Boise State a little bit of recognition. The thing is, you HAVE TO SCHEDULE PEOPLE OUT OF CONFERENCE to get respect. Thats how it works, and thats how it SHOULD be. Boise State played NO ONE RANKED before they got to the Fiesta Bowl.

 

Obviously its hard to say they are a top 8 team or something.

[Banedon]

There just isn't a surefire way to fairly determine who the #3 and #4 teams are.

 

And how do you say "too bad you played no one" to Boise St.? Is it their fault that their conference sucks?

 

There isn't a surefire way to solve the college football championship issue. My point is I don't really care if you're 5th and feel screwed. If it went to an 8 team playoff, #9 would feel screwed, and I'd care even less.

 

They choose to be in the conference they are in, and they schedule their own out of conference games. If you are willing to remain in a weak conference, then it's your own responsibility to get tough OOC games to make up for that weakness. It's not like this system was just sprung on them. This has been the case for years. And prior to the BCS, they wouldn't have even played in such a big bowl game as they did.

 

I think an 8 team playoff would have less chance to leave someone out that should be there though. Mid-major undefeateds are usually in the top 8 at least. Meanwhile Boise State went undefeated, won a BCS bowl game, and are still ranked 5th and would have missed any "playoff" scenario. Any team left out of an 8 team playoff almost assuredly has a loss.

 

It's not like Boise State can just go hop on over to a major conference or something. They're in the WAC because they've had to build their way to national significance. And they had to start winning some big games so they could start scheduling better opponents. Not everyone can be in a major conference. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opportunity at the Championship.

 

Bottom line: Theres less of a commotion when a number 9 gets left out of the playoffs. They, obviously, have less of a chance of going all the way.

 

I think people have given Boise State a little bit of recognition. The thing is, you HAVE TO SCHEDULE PEOPLE OUT OF CONFERENCE to get respect. Thats how it works, and thats how it SHOULD be. Boise State played NO ONE RANKED before they got to the Fiesta Bowl.

 

Obviously its hard to say they are a top 8 team or something.

 

They played Oregon State who ended up ranked 21 in the AP, 22 in BCS and USA Today. Not sure whether they were ranked at the time they played. They also beat Hawaii, who ended up ranked 24 in the USA Today poll. Boise State was number 8 in the BCS rankings even prior to the Oklahoma game. They would have made an 8 team playoff.

[Derwood]

Boise St. won't get anyone to play them when all the "power conference" teams are scheduling creampuffs for their OOC schedules. Would you want to play Boise St., risk having a loss before conference play, thus effectively ruining your chances at a NC? USC is about the only conference team with the balls to schedule tough OOC games these days.

 

I say this as Penn State fan, fully recognizing that PSU wrote the book on scheduling horrible OOC teams.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

[Derwood]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

 

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

[goonys evil twin]

Boise St. won't get anyone to play them when all the "power conference" teams are scheduling creampuffs for their OOC schedules. Would you want to play Boise St., risk having a loss before conference play, thus effectively ruining your chances at a NC? USC is about the only conference team with the balls to schedule tough OOC games these days.

 

I say this as Penn State fan, fully recognizing that PSU wrote the book on scheduling horrible OOC teams.

 

USC is hardly the only team willing to schedule tough OOC opponents. OSU and Texas have been playing each other for a while, a few big ten teams regularly schedule Notre Dame. The Florida schools regularly play one another (yes, Miami and FSU are now in the same conference, but it hasn't always been the case). Purdue went out and faced 2 top 25 teams on the road this year, OOC. Lots of teams do wimp out in that regard, but there is opportunity out there. If you're in the WAC and have national title aspirations, you better do anything you can to try and schedule potential top competition, and eliminate any ridiculous Sacramento State games. With pretty much every conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC complaining about the dominance of the Big Ten and SEC, there should be opportunity to get the best of the rest of the conferences to play you. If you have to go on the road to get them to play you, then do it.

[Derwood]

Boise St. won't get anyone to play them when all the "power conference" teams are scheduling creampuffs for their OOC schedules. Would you want to play Boise St., risk having a loss before conference play, thus effectively ruining your chances at a NC? USC is about the only conference team with the balls to schedule tough OOC games these days.

 

I say this as Penn State fan, fully recognizing that PSU wrote the book on scheduling horrible OOC teams.

 

USC is hardly the only team willing to schedule tough OOC opponents. OSU and Texas have been playing each other for a while, a few big ten teams regularly schedule Notre Dame. The Florida schools regularly play one another (yes, Miami and FSU are now in the same conference, but it hasn't always been the case). Purdue went out and faced 2 top 25 teams on the road this year, OOC. Lots of teams do wimp out in that regard, but there is opportunity out there. If you're in the WAC and have national title aspirations, you better do anything you can to try and schedule potential top competition, and eliminate any ridiculous Sacramento State games. With pretty much every conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC complaining about the dominance of the Big Ten and SEC, there should be opportunity to get the best of the rest of the conferences to play you. If you have to go on the road to get them to play you, then do it.

 

I'm just saying that it's easy to say "Boise St. should play better schools", but who's to say they haven't tried and been rejected? It's not like they can just say "Oh, by the way, we're playing Ohio St., USC and Notre Dame this year." If other teams won't play them, then how can they improve their OCC?

[soccer10k]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

 

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

 

This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm just saying that it's easy to say "Boise St. should play better schools", but who's to say they haven't tried and been rejected? It's not like they can just say "Oh, by the way, we're playing Ohio St., USC and Notre Dame this year." If other teams won't play them, then how can they improve their OCC?

 

Big conference schools do schedule teams like this every year. Look at Marshall, a conf USA team that should be in a similar "nobody wants to play them situation", yet they managed to schedule a Big East, Big Twelve and SEC team for their OOC. Memphis got 2 SEC teams on their schedule. Rice played a Pac 10, Big 12 and ACC. MAC school, Miami of Ohio played 2 Big Ten and 2 Big East. Northern Illinois played 2 Big Ten road games. In their own conference, Fresno State played 2 Pac 10 and an SEC team. Boise State played 1 Pac 10 team. They scheduled 2 OOC games against MWC schools and 1 against a 1-AA team. Heck, Hawaii went to an SEC school and hosted a Big Ten and an Pac 10 team.

 

The opportunity is out there for schools from weaker conferences to play teams from bigger conferences. I say Boise State made its own bed, choosing to play a weak schedule.

[bukie]

I've heard too much already of "If there was an 8-team playoff, Boise State would have gotten its deserving chance." (not just from here, I mean from sports pundits and radio hosts and weblogs and everything)

 

Really?

 

Think about it for a minute. The "Big Six" conferences would never, ever allow a playoff that they didn't get an automatic spot in. That puts Ohio State, Florida, Louisville, USC, Oklahoma, and Wake Forest in. After that, they'd likely choose from the top available BCS teams. That puts Michigan and LSU in, easy. Boise State is still left out in the cold.

 

Would Boise State have a valid argument? Absolutely. But they'd have to argue that either they were more deserving than LSU, or more deserving than any ACC team. I'm not sure either of those arguments fly before any NCAA playoff committee. Fair? Depends on your definition.

 

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

[TruffleShuffle]

If a team goes undefeated and finishes in the top 10 of the BCS standings, they get to be one of the 4 teams that plays for the title. Nice and easy.

[Guest]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

 

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

 

This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen.

 

The BCS rankings are completely ridiculous. The conference champs should get in. Wisconsin and Michigan don't get in unless they win the Big 10. Same for LSU or Cal or whoever else. Why is that so difficult? If you can't win your conference, you can't win the national championship. Makes sense to me.

[CuseCubFan69]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

 

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

 

This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen.

 

But the problem would be the good old boys would have 3 SEC, 3 or 4 Big 10 or 12 and USC/ND if you didn't include them. Also, what happens if a 7-5 Nebraska beats a 12-0 Oklahoma in the conference championship? There are multiple problems both ways unless you have a clause that says can't lose more than 2 or 3 games.

[CuseCubFan69]

I've heard too much already of "If there was an 8-team playoff, Boise State would have gotten its deserving chance." (not just from here, I mean from sports pundits and radio hosts and weblogs and everything)

 

Really?

 

Think about it for a minute. The "Big Six" conferences would never, ever allow a playoff that they didn't get an automatic spot in. That puts Ohio State, Florida, Louisville, USC, Oklahoma, and Wake Forest in. After that, they'd likely choose from the top available BCS teams. That puts Michigan and LSU in, easy. Boise State is still left out in the cold.

 

Would Boise State have a valid argument? Absolutely. But they'd have to argue that either they were more deserving than LSU, or more deserving than any ACC team. I'm not sure either of those arguments fly before any NCAA playoff committee. Fair? Depends on your definition.

 

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

You could use the bowls as a play in for some teams too if they went to 12 like the NFL and the wildcard..

[Guest]

I've heard too much already of "If there was an 8-team playoff, Boise State would have gotten its deserving chance." (not just from here, I mean from sports pundits and radio hosts and weblogs and everything)

 

Really?

 

Think about it for a minute. The "Big Six" conferences would never, ever allow a playoff that they didn't get an automatic spot in. That puts Ohio State, Florida, Louisville, USC, Oklahoma, and Wake Forest in. After that, they'd likely choose from the top available BCS teams. That puts Michigan and LSU in, easy. Boise State is still left out in the cold.

 

Would Boise State have a valid argument? Absolutely. But they'd have to argue that either they were more deserving than LSU, or more deserving than any ACC team. I'm not sure either of those arguments fly before any NCAA playoff committee. Fair? Depends on your definition.

 

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

You could use the bowls as a play in for some teams too if they went to 12 like the NFL and the wildcard..

 

to your first post, the conferences determine their champion however they want. if a 7-5 team gets in, so be it. the 12-0 team probably was not that great.

 

I think you could have a play in too.

 

did y'all read the article on jim delaney?