College Football Bowl Discussion

[SouthSideRyan]

I'll go ahead and post a condensed version of what I did earlier:

 

2009: One of No. 4 TCU (12-0), No. 5 Florida (12-1), No. 6 Boise St. (13-0) gets left out.

2008: Two of No. 3 Texas (11-1), No. 6 Utah (12-0), No. 7 Texas Tech (11-1), No. 9 Boise State (12-0) are left out while No. 12 Cincinnati (11-2) and No. 19 Virginia Tech (9-4) get in.

2006: Two of No. 3 Michigan (11-1), No. 4 LSU (10-2), No. 7 Wisconsin (11-1) and No. 8 Boise (12-0) are left out while No. 10 Oklahoma and No. 14 Wake Forest get in.

2004: One of No. 4 Texas (10-1), No. 5 Cal (10-1) and No. 6 Utah (11-0) are left out while No. 13 Michigan and No. 21 Pittsburgh get in.

 

You're telling me there wouldn't be controversy with those teams getting left out? This isn't the NCAA Tournament where a No. 11/12 seed (which is usually where the teams who narrowly miss out would get seeded) has no chance of winning the tournament.

 

But all of the teams in the "Could get left out" category are good enough that if they got hot for a couple weeks could win three straight and the national title.

 

The simple answer to that is to go to a 16-team format. I don't know if that's the right answer, but the format should be the question, not whether or not to go to a playoff system at all.

 

Which leads to teams losing 1/4 of their games and getting in. Or consistently shitty teams like whoever wins the MAC, C-USA, or Sun Belt getting in every year.

[dew1679666265]

I'll go ahead and post a condensed version of what I did earlier:

 

2009: One of No. 4 TCU (12-0), No. 5 Florida (12-1), No. 6 Boise St. (13-0) gets left out.

2008: Two of No. 3 Texas (11-1), No. 6 Utah (12-0), No. 7 Texas Tech (11-1), No. 9 Boise State (12-0) are left out while No. 12 Cincinnati (11-2) and No. 19 Virginia Tech (9-4) get in.

2006: Two of No. 3 Michigan (11-1), No. 4 LSU (10-2), No. 7 Wisconsin (11-1) and No. 8 Boise (12-0) are left out while No. 10 Oklahoma and No. 14 Wake Forest get in.

2004: One of No. 4 Texas (10-1), No. 5 Cal (10-1) and No. 6 Utah (11-0) are left out while No. 13 Michigan and No. 21 Pittsburgh get in.

 

You're telling me there wouldn't be controversy with those teams getting left out? This isn't the NCAA Tournament where a No. 11/12 seed (which is usually where the teams who narrowly miss out would get seeded) has no chance of winning the tournament.

 

But all of the teams in the "Could get left out" category are good enough that if they got hot for a couple weeks could win three straight and the national title.

 

The simple answer to that is to go to a 16-team format. I don't know if that's the right answer, but the format should be the question, not whether or not to go to a playoff system at all.

 

Which leads to teams losing 1/4 of their games and getting in. Or consistently [expletive] teams like whoever wins the MAC, C-USA, or Sun Belt getting in every year.

 

And those 3-4 three loss teams (if that many) will get knocked out in the first round. Or if they go further, then they'll have earned their way. Or you could go to 12 teams (if that'll work) and get no more than 1 3-loss team in each year.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'll go ahead and post a condensed version of what I did earlier:

 

2009: One of No. 4 TCU (12-0), No. 5 Florida (12-1), No. 6 Boise St. (13-0) gets left out.

2008: Two of No. 3 Texas (11-1), No. 6 Utah (12-0), No. 7 Texas Tech (11-1), No. 9 Boise State (12-0) are left out while No. 12 Cincinnati (11-2) and No. 19 Virginia Tech (9-4) get in.

2006: Two of No. 3 Michigan (11-1), No. 4 LSU (10-2), No. 7 Wisconsin (11-1) and No. 8 Boise (12-0) are left out while No. 10 Oklahoma and No. 14 Wake Forest get in.

2004: One of No. 4 Texas (10-1), No. 5 Cal (10-1) and No. 6 Utah (11-0) are left out while No. 13 Michigan and No. 21 Pittsburgh get in.

 

You're telling me there wouldn't be controversy with those teams getting left out? This isn't the NCAA Tournament where a No. 11/12 seed (which is usually where the teams who narrowly miss out would get seeded) has no chance of winning the tournament.

 

But all of the teams in the "Could get left out" category are good enough that if they got hot for a couple weeks could win three straight and the national title.

 

The simple answer to that is to go to a 16-team format. I don't know if that's the right answer, but the format should be the question, not whether or not to go to a playoff system at all.

 

Which leads to teams losing 1/4 of their games and getting in. Or consistently [expletive] teams like whoever wins the MAC, C-USA, or Sun Belt getting in every year.

 

And those 3-4 three loss teams (if that many) will get knocked out in the first round. Or if they go further, then they'll have earned their way. Or you could go to 12 teams (if that'll work) and get no more than 1 3-loss team in each year.

 

So you don't mind the regular season importance being reduced so greatly? No more than 8, which can't be done without Big 6 auto-bids = no playoffs.

[SpongeWorthy]

A playoff greatly increases the importance of games at the end of the season for teams that are already out of the national title (even conference title) picture under the current system.

[dew1679666265]

So you don't mind the regular season importance being reduced so greatly? No more than 8, which can't be done without Big 6 auto-bids = no playoffs.

 

If it vastly increases the importance (and significance) of the postseason? I'm fine with that. The postseason and crowning a champion is more important to me than the regular season games.

 

And the regular season remains quite important because teams will try very, very hard to avoid being matched up against the top 1-2 seeds.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So you don't mind the regular season importance being reduced so greatly?

 

Not at all. If you're wanting the fairest system anyway, the less importance you can place on a 12 game schedule, the better. For every team that would have meaningless games near the end of the year because they are in regardless, there'd be two teams fighting to break into those last couple at larges, or trying to win their conference to get an auto-bid. Imagine how pissed Nebraska would be if their loss cost them the shot at a potential title instead of the difference between the Fiesta and Holiday Bowl.

[dew1679666265]

A playoff greatly increases the importance of games at the end of the season for teams that are already out of the national title (even conference title) picture under the current system.

 

Yep. Some games will lose significance, but others will increase in significance. More importantly, though, the postseason will become better. And that's preferable to me.

[SpongeWorthy]

Plus when you factor in seeding and maybe even byes or home field advantage with the fact that 8 (or 12/16) teams really isn't a lot...college football still has the most important regular season--by far--of any sport.

[CubColtPacer]

Right now, college football is must see TV for 3 months straight on Saturdays. Watching top 5 teams battle through potential upset bids to not have their seasons ruined on any given Saturday. If a team gets upset, there are always other teams to take their place. A 16 team playoff would make me not care very much until the last couple weeks of November except for watching my team play. That would be incredibly sad and a couple good weeks of playoffs would not come close to making up for that.

[imb]

Right now, college football is must see TV for 3 months straight on Saturdays. Watching top 5 teams battle through potential upset bids to not have their seasons ruined on any given Saturday. If a team gets upset, there are always other teams to take their place. A 16 team playoff would make me not care very much until the last couple weeks of November except for watching my team play. That would be incredibly sad and a couple good weeks of playoffs would not come close to making up for that.

 

sometimes i feel like that, but i watch UNC-Duke every year in college basketball, and those are meaningless too, and I hate both teams.

 

a college football playoff would work. the regular season would be different at first and it would take some getting used to, but it would work.

[dew1679666265]

Right now, college football is must see TV for 3 months straight on Saturdays. Watching top 5 teams battle through potential upset bids to not have their seasons ruined on any given Saturday. If a team gets upset, there are always other teams to take their place. A 16 team playoff would make me not care very much until the last couple weeks of November except for watching my team play. That would be incredibly sad and a couple good weeks of playoffs would not come close to making up for that.

 

Why do fans care about the NFL in weeks 1-12 or so? There are plenty of NFL fans who intensely watch games early in the year to see how their team's direct opponents are doing and to evaluate the landscape overall. That would be the case in college football as well. Also, as imb said, people watch the Duke-UNC game and follow the early season tournaments, etc. in college basketball. I watch those things and I'm not even that big of a basketball fan.

 

A playoff would also keep more fans more excited about their own team far longer in the year. Throughout the 90s when Tennessee was a consistent title contender, a lot of my excitement for the season was gone when Tennessee lost to Florida. I'm sure it's the same way for the loser of the Red River Shootout or Miami/FSU or any of those title contending teams that have huge games early in the year. It's rather silly that a game in Week 1 of a 12-week season should play a huge role in whether or not a team has a chance to compete for a national title. If there had been a playoff in the 90s, I would have been far more excited watching UT football because even after losing to Florida in the third week of the season, there would still have been a chance that Tennessee could have made the national title game. As it was, the loser of that game was basically out of the national title hunt. And it's that way for quite a few teams. That's pretty sad.

 

Keep in mind also, right now we've got 12 weeks of intense football and then a month of completely meaningless, almost exhibition football and then a couple days of sometimes fairly entertaining football. By far the best thing about college football right now is the regular season and the postseason is, generally, a letdown. That's very backwards.

[weis21]

I'm about a week late (and no one probably cares anyway) but how about those Pirates of ECU? Woot!

[dew1679666265]

I'm about a week late (and no one probably cares anyway) but how about those Pirates of ECU? Woot!

 

That was a great win by ECU. I really thought Houston would have too much offense, but didn't expect the strong offense from the Pirates.

 

Holtz is making it hard for a BCS conference school to keep overlooking him.

[CubColtPacer]

Right now, college football is must see TV for 3 months straight on Saturdays. Watching top 5 teams battle through potential upset bids to not have their seasons ruined on any given Saturday. If a team gets upset, there are always other teams to take their place. A 16 team playoff would make me not care very much until the last couple weeks of November except for watching my team play. That would be incredibly sad and a couple good weeks of playoffs would not come close to making up for that.

Why do fans care about the NFL in weeks 1-12 or so? There are plenty of NFL fans who intensely watch games early in the year to see how their team's direct opponents are doing and to evaluate the landscape overall. That would be the case in college football as well. Also, as imb said, people watch the Duke-UNC game and follow the early season tournaments, etc. in college basketball. I watch those things and I'm not even that big of a basketball fan.

 

NFL doesn't feature as many mismatches as college football. That's what makes it more exciting to watch because so many games are likely to be competitive. College basketball gets most of their mismatches out of their way in the holiday season where people don't have as much time to watch sports and when they do they have both NFL and college football to watch. And most people don't watch large parts of the college basketball season.

 

College football has the most mismatches of any sport out there. There has to be a reason to stay interested in those mismatches and the pressure of needing to stay undefeated does that very well. If good to great teams can drop a couple games, there won't be much reason to make sure to watch those games.

 

A playoff would also keep more fans more excited about their own team far longer in the year. Throughout the 90s when Tennessee was a consistent title contender, a lot of my excitement for the season was gone when Tennessee lost to Florida. I'm sure it's the same way for the loser of the Red River Shootout or Miami/FSU or any of those title contending teams that have huge games early in the year. It's rather silly that a game in Week 1 of a 12-week season should play a huge role in whether or not a team has a chance to compete for a national title. If there had been a playoff in the 90s, I would have been far more excited watching UT football because even after losing to Florida in the third week of the season, there would still have been a chance that Tennessee could have made the national title game. As it was, the loser of that game was basically out of the national title hunt. And it's that way for quite a few teams. That's pretty sad.

 

Keep in mind also, right now we've got 12 weeks of intense football and then a month of completely meaningless, almost exhibition football and then a couple days of sometimes fairly entertaining football. By far the best thing about college football right now is the regular season and the postseason is, generally, a letdown. That's very backwards.

 

There are still plenty of reasons to be excited in your team until it loses 3 games in the current system. And typically 3 losses would keep you from a playoff anyway. So while having a chance at a national title would be more exciting, it's still your team and so having a good team is entertaining. And the intensity of having to show up for every game when it's your team is exhilarating.

 

The postseason is the worst part of college football but it comes in a time that many people don't have the time to sit down and watch football during the week. Having a better system to choose attractive matchups for bowls would go quite a long way towards helping the bowls be exciting without needing it to determine the national championship. And while a playoff might be great, it doesn't make up for the damage it would do to the prior 3 months.

[Guest]

March Madness is by far my favorite postseason tournament but because of it, I really don't care about watching the preseason tournaments and will watch games like Duke-UNC during the regular season only if I'm not doing anything else when they're on.

 

But games between top teams in college football, prior to this year (when I was covering UCD football most Saturday's), my whole day centered around watching some of those games knowing that the winner's title hopes would get a big boost and the loser's would take a big hit.

 

USC-Ohio State the last two years was must see even though the game was in the first couple weeks. If there was a playoff, that game would mean very little. It would still be an important game, but it sure wouldn't be must see.

 

There are also tons of late season losses for top teams that wouldn't mean much other than dropping a couple seeds if we had a 16-team playoff. UCLA beating USC a couple years ago would have been huge for UCLA regardless, but it wouldn't have killed USC's title chances. That WVU game a couple years ago where they lost to Pitt and allowed LSU to get into the title game is the same. OSU-Michigan a couple years ago. Big game? Sure. But both would have been going to the playoffs anyway so it wouldn't have been the epic battle for a national title berth that it ended up being. Alabama-Florida this year. The list could go on and on.

[dew1679666265]

NFL doesn't feature as many mismatches as college football. That's what makes it more exciting to watch because so many games are likely to be competitive. College basketball gets most of their mismatches out of their way in the holiday season where people don't have as much time to watch sports and when they do they have both NFL and college football to watch. And most people don't watch large parts of the college basketball season.

 

College football has the most mismatches of any sport out there. There has to be a reason to stay interested in those mismatches and the pressure of needing to stay undefeated does that very well. If good to great teams can drop a couple games, there won't be much reason to make sure to watch those games.

 

If one of the biggest reasons to have a vastly sub-par postseason is to prop up massive regular season mismatches, then maybe something should be done about scheduling. Florida/Coastal Carolina or Tennessee/Western Kentucky are not going to be exciting games no matter the setup. Mismatches are not going to be exciting either way. I would bet that the reason there are so many extreme mismatches now, though, is because a team knows it can't lose more than (at most) one game to have a shot at a title. Thus, it schedules 1-AA and terrible 1-A teams so that it won't have the possibility of being knocked out of the title hunt by a non-conference game.

 

If you put a playoff in and teams can lose a game or two and still be in contention for a playoff berth, you might see more competitive games as teams try to prepare for the playoffs. You don't want to play a bunch of patsies and then have to win four or so straight highly competitive games.

 

There are still plenty of reasons to be excited in your team until it loses 3 games in the current system. And typically 3 losses would keep you from a playoff anyway. So while having a chance at a national title would be more exciting, it's still your team and so having a good team is entertaining. And the intensity of having to show up for every game when it's your team is exhilarating.

 

For a team that enters the year with hopes of a national title, watching a team with 2 losses with the hopes of going to the Capital One Bowl or the Holiday Bowl just isn't that exciting. It's still fun to root on your team and hope for a good year, but it's not the same, nor is it even anywhere close. How much better would this season have been if LSU, TCU, Boise State, Ohio State, Penn State, Florida, Cincinnati, etc. still felt like they were playing for a title? The only regular season games that lose significant excitement in a playoff format are the very early season ones. Georgia Tech/Clemson or Oregon/Oregon State or BYU/Utah would have been so much more exciting, intense games if there was a realistic chance for some of those teams to make a playoff and compete for a title. Instead they were playing for a little bit better bowl.

 

The postseason is the worst part of college football but it comes in a time that many people don't have the time to sit down and watch football during the week. Having a better system to choose attractive matchups for bowls would go quite a long way towards helping the bowls be exciting without needing it to determine the national championship. And while a playoff might be great, it doesn't make up for the damage it would do to the prior 3 months.

 

That'll never happen with the bowls because their only interest is to get fans into the seats and spending money in their city. They don't care about getting good team against good team unless it happens to fit within making their bowl more profitable. That's fine that they want to make money, but as a fan, my interest lies in getting the most entertaining and legitimate postseason format possible and that won't happen while we have bowls only considering the dollar amount their bowl will draw in.

 

Also, it's not just the few weeks a playoff lasts that we'll have extremely exciting football. It's also all the weeks leading up to the playoffs and the big games in the middle and later parts of the season that can clinch spots or eliminate teams that will be exciting as well. Your looking at roughly the same time frame of exciting football, you're just adding some legitimacy to the postseason system that is the reason we're cheering for the teams in the first place.

[dew1679666265]

March Madness is by far my favorite postseason tournament but because of it, I really don't care about watching the preseason tournaments and will watch games like Duke-UNC during the regular season only if I'm not doing anything else when they're on.

 

But games between top teams in college football, prior to this year (when I was covering UCD football most Saturday's), my whole day centered around watching some of those games knowing that the winner's title hopes would get a big boost and the loser's would take a big hit.

 

USC-Ohio State the last two years was must see even though the game was in the first couple weeks. If there was a playoff, that game would mean very little. It would still be an important game, but it sure wouldn't be must see.

 

There are also tons of late season losses for top teams that wouldn't mean much other than dropping a couple seeds if we had a 16-team playoff. UCLA beating USC a couple years ago would have been huge for UCLA regardless, but it wouldn't have killed USC's title chances. That WVU game a couple years ago where they lost to Pitt and allowed LSU to get into the title game is the same. OSU-Michigan a couple years ago. Big game? Sure. But both would have been going to the playoffs anyway so it wouldn't have been the epic battle for a national title berth that it ended up being. Alabama-Florida this year. The list could go on and on.

 

How much did you watch Washington/Cal last week? How about South Carolina/Clemson two weeks ago? Or LSU/Arkansas? Or Georgia/Georgia Tech? Those are all big matchups between major conference schools that were all but meaningless to anyone outside of the fanbase of each school.

 

However, in a playoff system, every one of those games would have been huge in terms of remaining in or being eliminated from playoff contention. As someone said earlier, for every game that might lose a little meaning, there is at least one if not two games that would gain in meaning because of a playoff system.

[CubbieBum]

A playoff would likely get rid of a lot of the crap games in the beginning of the season. Top teams play cupcakes right now because they know going undefeated will almost guarantee them the NC game or in the case of non-BCS teams it will guarantee them a BCS bowl which is huge for them in many ways. If teams have to worry about seeding and all that they will schedule more tough games out of conference just like we now see in basketball.

 

Also the regular season wouldn't be any less important. It would change how it is important but it will still be huge. You only have 12 games and one loss is going to drop you in the seeds and make it unlikely for the top seed. Two losses puts you at risk of not making the playoff at all.

[shnsajax]

Still no Voice of Reason?

[SouthSideRyan]

Why do fans care about the NFL in weeks 1-12 or so? There are plenty of NFL fans who intensely watch games early in the year to see how their team's direct opponents are doing and to evaluate the landscape overall.

 

Fantasy teams and meatheads.

[dew1679666265]

Why do fans care about the NFL in weeks 1-12 or so? There are plenty of NFL fans who intensely watch games early in the year to see how their team's direct opponents are doing and to evaluate the landscape overall.

 

Fantasy teams and meatheads.

 

Those too. I'm not a meathead, but I follow the entire NFL from Week 1 to the Super Bowl. I'd do the same (to a lesser extent) with college football and would likely do it moreso if the postseason format made more games more enticing.

[Guest]

March Madness is by far my favorite postseason tournament but because of it, I really don't care about watching the preseason tournaments and will watch games like Duke-UNC during the regular season only if I'm not doing anything else when they're on.

 

But games between top teams in college football, prior to this year (when I was covering UCD football most Saturday's), my whole day centered around watching some of those games knowing that the winner's title hopes would get a big boost and the loser's would take a big hit.

 

USC-Ohio State the last two years was must see even though the game was in the first couple weeks. If there was a playoff, that game would mean very little. It would still be an important game, but it sure wouldn't be must see.

 

There are also tons of late season losses for top teams that wouldn't mean much other than dropping a couple seeds if we had a 16-team playoff. UCLA beating USC a couple years ago would have been huge for UCLA regardless, but it wouldn't have killed USC's title chances. That WVU game a couple years ago where they lost to Pitt and allowed LSU to get into the title game is the same. OSU-Michigan a couple years ago. Big game? Sure. But both would have been going to the playoffs anyway so it wouldn't have been the epic battle for a national title berth that it ended up being. Alabama-Florida this year. The list could go on and on.

 

How much did you watch Washington/Cal last week? How about South Carolina/Clemson two weeks ago? Or LSU/Arkansas? Or Georgia/Georgia Tech? Those are all big matchups between major conference schools that were all but meaningless to anyone outside of the fanbase of each school.

 

However, in a playoff system, every one of those games would have been huge in terms of remaining in or being eliminated from playoff contention. As someone said earlier, for every game that might lose a little meaning, there is at least one if not two games that would gain in meaning because of a playoff system.

 

I watched a lot of the Georgia-Georgia Tech game but that's mainly because I wanted to see GT's offense since I hadn't gotten the chance to yet this year because I've worked most Saturdays. South Carolina/Clemson and LSU/Arkansas were completely uninteresting games to me that I wouldn't have watched whether they mattered for a playoff spot or not.

 

And I don't think even Cal and Washington fans watched that game last week. Anyone who gives a crap about college football was watching Florida-Alabama and then Texas-Nebraska. But even if Cal-Washington was on by itself, it falls into the same category as the SC-Clem and LSU-Ark games.

 

I happen to like the current system and would only support a plus 1 system. I could probably deal with an eight-team playoff if they just took the top-8 rather than giving auto bids to the six conference winners but there's an equal chance of that happening as there is of the Cubs being retroactively named the 2009 World Series champions so I don't even include that as an option. I understand the arguments for the other side of things, I just disagree with them.

[CubbieBum]

March Madness is by far my favorite postseason tournament but because of it, I really don't care about watching the preseason tournaments and will watch games like Duke-UNC during the regular season only if I'm not doing anything else when they're on.

 

But games between top teams in college football, prior to this year (when I was covering UCD football most Saturday's), my whole day centered around watching some of those games knowing that the winner's title hopes would get a big boost and the loser's would take a big hit.

 

USC-Ohio State the last two years was must see even though the game was in the first couple weeks. If there was a playoff, that game would mean very little. It would still be an important game, but it sure wouldn't be must see.

 

There are also tons of late season losses for top teams that wouldn't mean much other than dropping a couple seeds if we had a 16-team playoff. UCLA beating USC a couple years ago would have been huge for UCLA regardless, but it wouldn't have killed USC's title chances. That WVU game a couple years ago where they lost to Pitt and allowed LSU to get into the title game is the same. OSU-Michigan a couple years ago. Big game? Sure. But both would have been going to the playoffs anyway so it wouldn't have been the epic battle for a national title berth that it ended up being. Alabama-Florida this year. The list could go on and on.

 

How much did you watch Washington/Cal last week? How about South Carolina/Clemson two weeks ago? Or LSU/Arkansas? Or Georgia/Georgia Tech? Those are all big matchups between major conference schools that were all but meaningless to anyone outside of the fanbase of each school.

 

However, in a playoff system, every one of those games would have been huge in terms of remaining in or being eliminated from playoff contention. As someone said earlier, for every game that might lose a little meaning, there is at least one if not two games that would gain in meaning because of a playoff system.

 

I watched a lot of the Georgia-Georgia Tech game but that's mainly because I wanted to see GT's offense since I hadn't gotten the chance to yet this year because I've worked most Saturdays. South Carolina/Clemson and LSU/Arkansas were completely uninteresting games to me that I wouldn't have watched whether they mattered for a playoff spot or not.

 

And I don't think even Cal and Washington fans watched that game last week. Anyone who gives a crap about college football was watching Florida-Alabama and then Texas-Nebraska. But even if Cal-Washington was on by itself, it falls into the same category as the SC-Clem and LSU-Ark games.

 

I happen to like the current system and would only support a plus 1 system. I could probably deal with an eight-team playoff if they just took the top-8 rather than giving auto bids to the six conference winners but there's an equal chance of that happening as there is of the Cubs being retroactively named the 2009 World Series champions so I don't even include that as an option. I understand the arguments for the other side of things, I just disagree with them.

 

I completely agree with the point that if there is a 8-team playoff six of those spots should not be autos. It should be the top 8 period. If you go to 16 teams I'm fine with 6 autos but that's because they would probably qualify anyways.

[dew1679666265]

I watched a lot of the Georgia-Georgia Tech game but that's mainly because I wanted to see GT's offense since I hadn't gotten the chance to yet this year because I've worked most Saturdays. South Carolina/Clemson and LSU/Arkansas were completely uninteresting games to me that I wouldn't have watched whether they mattered for a playoff spot or not.

 

And I don't think even Cal and Washington fans watched that game last week. Anyone who gives a crap about college football was watching Florida-Alabama and then Texas-Nebraska. But even if Cal-Washington was on by itself, it falls into the same category as the SC-Clem and LSU-Ark games.

 

I happen to like the current system and would only support a plus 1 system. I could probably deal with an eight-team playoff if they just took the top-8 rather than giving auto bids to the six conference winners but there's an equal chance of that happening as there is of the Cubs being retroactively named the 2009 World Series champions so I don't even include that as an option. I understand the arguments for the other side of things, I just disagree with them.

 

I found all those matchups interesting, but didn't watch any but the UGA/GT game because they were meaningless in the current system and there were more meaningful games on (just like you mentioned any good college football fan ought to have been watching Bama/UF).

 

I don't like the current system simply because it trivializes what is a great regular season and there is no legitimacy to the postseason. Teams are placed into postseason spots according to who sports writers like better and who bowl executives think will make them more money. That's it. It's not about performance on the field during that exciting regular season. When a team like TCU can do everything right and still not have a realistic shot at the title game, something is wrong with the system.

 

Whether the answer is a plus-one, an 8-team playoff, a 12-team playoff or a 16-team playoff, I don't know. But a playoff of some type is likely the only realistic and reasonable answer.

[Guest]

I really cannot believe that people are arguing that a playoff system will make the regular season so less important that people won't want to watch. In America we love any sort of competition and we football even more, even more than that we love college football. 99.5% of the teams on nationally televised TV games each week have no shot and people still watch.

 

It's a ridiculous argument on its face.

 

If there is no playoff system every game is a freaking exhibition game. It's the way it is now and it's tradition, but if people want a real champion like in every other NCAA sport there will have to be some sort of playoff system put in place.

 

The National Championship is in name only. NCAA football is a on the same competition level as a beauty pageant.