Talking BCS with Harvey Perlman...

[HuskerGBR]

OK, let's look at another year. Let's use 2001 as our example. Nebraska lost their last game of the season pretty bad, but under the current system still made the NC game. A lot of people thought Oregon should have played in the game, and a few thought CU should have played in the game because their losses came much earlier in the season and each were thought to be much better teams at the end while Nebraska seemed to be sliding. A playoff would answer these questions while the current system continually has to be changed when these "new" wrinkles show themselves. This isn't like basketball where 64 teams get in. This would be 8 teams getting in where a lot of emphasis would be put on how they did in the "regular" season. The top 8 BCS teams aren't loaded with losses. Last year Texas and USC thought they got shafted. With an 8 team playoff, they could have proven whether or not they did. This is what I want to see. I will puke if another Big 10 team makes it to the NC game this year only to get blown out.

 

Like I have already said Junior...you can't do it that way. That's not a true playoff system and it would solve nothing. As you guys know I am against a playoff. Numbers 9,10,11,12 etc would complain about not getting in so nothing would change. The bowl games would suffer...you can't guarantee that every game matters...No clue how money would get handled...the OOC scheduling/scheduling in general. There are more, but I am drained right now. Everybody thinks they should have played in the NCG even before the BCS. And its more the fans that do the crying. Here is what happens with the BCS...win all your games and you are good to go. (The Utah argument does not count...they need to play someone first and Alabama was a bowl game so that doesn't count either).

 

I watch games every Saturday. Every week matters. I don't do that for any other sport and that is why I love college football. Why would I want to change that to please a bunch of cry babies from the MWC who just want a piece of the pie handed to them and not work for it like the rest of the conferences did.

[HUSKER 37]

 

...win all your games and you are good to go. (The Utah argument does not count...they need to play someone first and Alabama was a bowl game so that doesn't count either). ...

 

 

Wait a minute..Whut?

 

Why doesnt a bowl game count?

 

 

(careful)

[carlfense]

 

...win all your games and you are good to go. (The Utah argument does not count...they need to play someone first and Alabama was a bowl game so that doesn't count either). ...

 

 

Wait a minute..Whut?

 

Why doesnt a bowl game count?

 

 

(careful)

 

I think that he meant that it didn't count for scheduling purposes because they didn't schedule Alabama. (he seemed to be saying that if they played a big name school like Alabama during the regular season then Utah would have a better argument for deserving to be in the title game.)

[HUSKER 37]

Someone enlighten me as to how a playoff will diminish the regular season? With a playoff, your team loses one or twice you can still fight your way back. You still have to get to the playoffs. As it is now, if you lose, in all probability you are not playing for a NC.

 

In 2007, can we agree that LSU was crowned the NC? Can we also agree that LSU had 2 losses? Can we agree that those 2 losses came at the hands of teams that didn't even end the season ranked in the BCS top 25? So, how again is the regular season diminished? LSU lost 2 games in the regular season, yet they still played for and won the NC. Florida lost at home in the swamp last year, yet they still made the NC game and won. I just don't get the accusation that a playoff would diminish the regular season when the regular season has basically been diminished with the current method.

 

Unfortunately, we will not be having a playoff anytime soon. This is something we all can pretty much agree upon. However, I will say this though. Had Nebraska been in Penn States shoes in 94', I'd guess there'd be a lot more pro playoff system fans here in Nebraska. Had Nebraska not been given a share of the 97' NC, there would be a lot more pro playoff NU fans.

 

Do you think it is an issue that LSU had two losses in 2007 and still was crowned the national champion? If so, what does that do to your argument that we need a playoff? It appears to me that it would be more likely that we would have teams with multiple losses winning a playoff and being crowned national champion than a team with multiple losses making it to the national championship game in our current BCS system. Therefore . . . the importance of those regular season losses is diminished in a playoff system. Is this faulty logic?

 

 

 

What I have an issue with is that everyone who is against a playoff keeps saying the regular season will be diminished. LSU lost 2 games to unranked teams during the regular season, yet they were crowned NC. The regular season has already been diminished even with the current system, so how is it going to be diminished any further with a playoff? This was the logic. Some people actually thought in 2007 that Georgia was the hottest team at the end of the season, yet they didn't make the big dance.

 

Why would there be a chance of teams with multiple losses making the playoffs? Explain this to me. If we allow the BCS to rank the 8 teams that make the playoffs, why is there anymore of a chance of teams with multiple losses winning the NC? This seems like faulty logic. For instance, lets use 2008. At the end of the season, all 8 of the final 8 ranked teams had a loss except for 1. No team would have had multiple losses because once in the playoffs you lose you're out. In 2007, all 8 of the final 8 teams but 2 had 2 losses. So, chances are in 2007 regardless of who would have won the playoffs it more than likely would have been a 2 loss team. And in 2007, a multiple loss team did win the NC with the current system.

 

The fact that LSU won a MNC with two losses DID diminish the importance of the regular season a little.

But that was an exception..A playoff would make results like that much more common.

 

I can see a few positives in having a playoff..You can still have hope towards the end of the season even if your team already lost a couple whereas before..you were pretty much already looking forward to next season.

 

Teams may even be (slightly) more apt to schedule a tougher non conference opponent once in awhile knowing if they lose..there's still a chance they might get a rematch in a playoff..As it is..tOSU played Texass early and had to HOPE a loss wouldn't hurt them too much at the end.

 

I happen to like the controversy..it feeds a greater interest...I just doubt the bitching and moaning of the ninth team being left out would be near as effective in maintaining that controversy as a number three plus whoever the WAC lets through undefeated.

[HUSKER 37]

 

...win all your games and you are good to go. (The Utah argument does not count...they need to play someone first and Alabama was a bowl game so that doesn't count either). ...

 

 

Wait a minute..Whut?

 

Why doesnt a bowl game count?

 

 

(careful)

 

I think that he meant that it didn't count for scheduling purposes because they didn't schedule Alabama. (he seemed to be saying that if they played a big name school like Alabama during the regular season then Utah would have a better argument for deserving to be in the title game.)

 

That make more better sense...

 

Still...they should get credit for beating the Tides..And I'd bet they would jump at the chance to play them in the regular season...in fact..I bet they wouldn't mind having US on their schedule...'Specially while we're more style than substance. (We're on our way..but still can be had).

 

But I'm guessing Utah would NOT have gotten the opportunity to take down Alabama if we had an 8-team playoff.

 

 

I'm not much of a fan of the WAC...But it IS sorta fun seeing them beat PAC-10 teams out here.

And I would've really hated not being able to see Boise take out OU..(I know I should root for a conference brethren...but a lot of past "hook-and-Ladder" nightmares that resulted from Switzer beating Tom in years past seemed to have stopped visiting me at night.

FWFbGw-jZvc&feature

[junior4949]

Someone enlighten me as to how a playoff will diminish the regular season? With a playoff, your team loses one or twice you can still fight your way back. You still have to get to the playoffs. As it is now, if you lose, in all probability you are not playing for a NC.

 

In 2007, can we agree that LSU was crowned the NC? Can we also agree that LSU had 2 losses? Can we agree that those 2 losses came at the hands of teams that didn't even end the season ranked in the BCS top 25? So, how again is the regular season diminished? LSU lost 2 games in the regular season, yet they still played for and won the NC. Florida lost at home in the swamp last year, yet they still made the NC game and won. I just don't get the accusation that a playoff would diminish the regular season when the regular season has basically been diminished with the current method.

 

Unfortunately, we will not be having a playoff anytime soon. This is something we all can pretty much agree upon. However, I will say this though. Had Nebraska been in Penn States shoes in 94', I'd guess there'd be a lot more pro playoff system fans here in Nebraska. Had Nebraska not been given a share of the 97' NC, there would be a lot more pro playoff NU fans.

 

Do you think it is an issue that LSU had two losses in 2007 and still was crowned the national champion? If so, what does that do to your argument that we need a playoff? It appears to me that it would be more likely that we would have teams with multiple losses winning a playoff and being crowned national champion than a team with multiple losses making it to the national championship game in our current BCS system. Therefore . . . the importance of those regular season losses is diminished in a playoff system. Is this faulty logic?

 

Edit:

Also, you focus on 2007 LSU. Is this because this is the only team in BCS title game history that won the BCS title with more than one loss? Have a look:

1998 - Tennessee - undefeated.

1999 - FSU - undefeated.

2000 - Oklahoma - undefeated.

2001 - Miami - undefeated.

2002 - OSU - undefeated.

2003 - LSU - 1 loss.

2004 - USC - undefeated.

2005 - Texas - undefeated.

2006 - Florida - 1 loss.

2007 - LSU - 2 losses.

2008 - Florida - 1 loss.

 

It's interesting that you focus on the one exception over the 10 year history to make your primary point. Why not include the undefeated champions? Because they don't fit within the point you are trying to make?

 

 

Why is it that you only used the champion's record in those BCS titles? Is it because their opponent had 1 loss? I'm guessing it is and that doesn't show what you want. All you anti playoof folks totally forget to mention the 2004 season. The top 3 final BCS teams were undefeated. Under the current system, Auburn got hosed. They did everything right going undefeated only to be left without a chance of a NC. It was the 2004 season when the playoff banter really got heated up. In the 11 seasons we've had the BCS, only 3 times have there been two undefeated teams playing in the NC game or less than 30% of the time. Let's look at last year. We snub Alabama from the title game for losing to Florida, but we put OU in the title game even though they lost to Texas. Texas gets snubbed even though they beat OU. Their only loss came at the hands of BCS #7 Texas Tech while Florida got beat by #25 Ole Miss and still got into the title game. This all occurred due to the continual tweaking of the BCS formula.

 

Since the inception of the BCS, there have been problems. In 2004, we had too many undefeated teams. In 2008, we had too many 1 loss teams. In 2001 and 2003, we had two teams make it to the title game who didn't win their conference. In 2003, we had to have a co-champ because apparently the BCS formula didn't get it right. While I realize there will always be problems even if there is a playoff. How many times does a bottom seed in any other playoff win the title? Yeah, the 9-12 or however far you wanna take it teams might not be pleased by not making the 8 team playoff. However, how many times would they have a legitimate shot at winning the title anyway?

 

Like I've said. I'd be willing to bet had things not gone Nebraska's way in 1994 and 1997, at least 80% of you against a playoff now would be all for it. All any of us pro playoff folks want is to see the best teams play one another. This is what the BCS was supposed to do putting the best teams in the NC game. I can't say this has happened. We wouldn't have had a co-champion if it had happened. In 2004, 5 of the top 10 teams were undefeated after the regular season. Yet, we only allow two of them the opportunity for a NC? In 2000, Florida State gets into the title game even though they lost head to head to Miami and were ranked behind Miami in the human polls. It appears to me that the BCS has performed about as well as Obama's stimulus package.

[carlfense]

Someone enlighten me as to how a playoff will diminish the regular season? With a playoff, your team loses one or twice you can still fight your way back. You still have to get to the playoffs. As it is now, if you lose, in all probability you are not playing for a NC.

 

In 2007, can we agree that LSU was crowned the NC? Can we also agree that LSU had 2 losses? Can we agree that those 2 losses came at the hands of teams that didn't even end the season ranked in the BCS top 25? So, how again is the regular season diminished? LSU lost 2 games in the regular season, yet they still played for and won the NC. Florida lost at home in the swamp last year, yet they still made the NC game and won. I just don't get the accusation that a playoff would diminish the regular season when the regular season has basically been diminished with the current method.

 

Unfortunately, we will not be having a playoff anytime soon. This is something we all can pretty much agree upon. However, I will say this though. Had Nebraska been in Penn States shoes in 94', I'd guess there'd be a lot more pro playoff system fans here in Nebraska. Had Nebraska not been given a share of the 97' NC, there would be a lot more pro playoff NU fans.

 

Do you think it is an issue that LSU had two losses in 2007 and still was crowned the national champion? If so, what does that do to your argument that we need a playoff? It appears to me that it would be more likely that we would have teams with multiple losses winning a playoff and being crowned national champion than a team with multiple losses making it to the national championship game in our current BCS system. Therefore . . . the importance of those regular season losses is diminished in a playoff system. Is this faulty logic?

 

Edit:

Also, you focus on 2007 LSU. Is this because this is the only team in BCS title game history that won the BCS title with more than one loss? Have a look:

1998 - Tennessee - undefeated.

1999 - FSU - undefeated.

2000 - Oklahoma - undefeated.

2001 - Miami - undefeated.

2002 - OSU - undefeated.

2003 - LSU - 1 loss.

2004 - USC - undefeated.

2005 - Texas - undefeated.

2006 - Florida - 1 loss.

2007 - LSU - 2 losses.

2008 - Florida - 1 loss.

 

It's interesting that you focus on the one exception over the 10 year history to make your primary point. Why not include the undefeated champions? Because they don't fit within the point you are trying to make?

 

 

Why is it that you only used the champion's record in those BCS titles? Is it because their opponent had 1 loss? I'm guessing it is and that doesn't show what you want. All you anti playoof folks totally forget to mention the 2004 season. The top 3 final BCS teams were undefeated. Under the current system, Auburn got hosed. They did everything right going undefeated only to be left without a chance of a NC. It was the 2004 season when the playoff banter really got heated up. In the 11 seasons we've had the BCS, only 3 times have there been two undefeated teams playing in the NC game or less than 30% of the time. Let's look at last year. We snub Alabama from the title game for losing to Florida, but we put OU in the title game even though they lost to Texas. Texas gets snubbed even though they beat OU. Their only loss came at the hands of BCS #7 Texas Tech while Florida got beat by #25 Ole Miss and still got into the title game. This all occurred due to the continual tweaking of the BCS formula.

 

Since the inception of the BCS, there have been problems. In 2004, we had too many undefeated teams. In 2008, we had too many 1 loss teams. In 2001 and 2003, we had two teams make it to the title game who didn't win their conference. In 2003, we had to have a co-champ because apparently the BCS formula didn't get it right. While I realize there will always be problems even if there is a playoff. How many times does a bottom seed in any other playoff win the title? Yeah, the 9-12 or however far you wanna take it teams might not be pleased by not making the 8 team playoff. However, how many times would they have a legitimate shot at winning the title anyway?

 

Like I've said. I'd be willing to bet had things not gone Nebraska's way in 1994 and 1997, at least 80% of you against a playoff now would be all for it. All any of us pro playoff folks want is to see the best teams play one another. This is what the BCS was supposed to do putting the best teams in the NC game. I can't say this has happened. We wouldn't have had a co-champion if it had happened. In 2004, 5 of the top 10 teams were undefeated after the regular season. Yet, we only allow two of them the opportunity for a NC? In 2000, Florida State gets into the title game even though they lost head to head to Miami and were ranked behind Miami in the human polls. It appears to me that the BCS has performed about as well as Obama's stimulus package.

 

Haha. Hardly. I just didn't realize you wanted to know. Let's look, shall we?

 

98 - both undefeated.

99. both undefeated.

00 - 1 undefeated - 1 loss.

01 - 1 undefeated - 1 loss.

02 - both undefeated.

03 - 1 loss and 1 loss.

04 - both undefeated.

05 - both undefeated.

06 - 1 undefeated - 1 loss.

07 1 loss and 2 loss. (by the way . . . who do you think should have been in the title game over 2 loss LSU? Undefeated Hawaii?)

08 1 loss and 1 loss.

 

Interesting, no? Almost always undefeated or 1 loss. In fact an undefeated team has been in the title game 13 times . . . while a team with a loss or more has only been in the title game 9 times. Contrary to your bolded statement above, the facts DO support my argument. I just didn't take the time to include them all.

[junior4949]

In 1998, Florida State had a loss to NC State. Therefore, both teams in the title game couldn't have been undefeated. There's been huge controversy in how many of the 11 BCS title games? 2000, there was huge controversy putting Florida State in the title game even though Miami beat them head to head and was ahead of them in the human polls. 2001, do we really need to go there. 2003, we put OU in the title game after being manhandled in the Big 12 Championship game. Consequently, the voters were sympathetic that the BCS screwed the pooch and gave USC a share of the title. In 2004, the top 3 ranked BCS teams were undefeated. In fact, 5 of the top 10 teams were undefeated. BCS screwed the pooch again. In 2007, the entire BCS and title game was a mess with the crowned NC losing two games in the regular season to unranked teams. In 2008, it was a complete mess again with the #3 ranked team beating the #1 ranked team head to head. In at least 6 out of the 11 years, the BCS has screwed the pooch. I guess to me this screams overhaul of the system. If we're not going to get it right or even attempt to get it right, we might as well go back to having tie-ins with each bowl.

[krc1995]

OK, let's look at another year. Let's use 2001 as our example. Nebraska lost their last game of the season pretty bad, but under the current system still made the NC game. A lot of people thought Oregon should have played in the game, and a few thought CU should have played in the game because their losses came much earlier in the season and each were thought to be much better teams at the end while Nebraska seemed to be sliding. A playoff would answer these questions while the current system continually has to be changed when these "new" wrinkles show themselves. This isn't like basketball where 64 teams get in. This would be 8 teams getting in where a lot of emphasis would be put on how they did in the "regular" season. The top 8 BCS teams aren't loaded with losses. Last year Texas and USC thought they got shafted. With an 8 team playoff, they could have proven whether or not they did. This is what I want to see. I will puke if another Big 10 team makes it to the NC game this year only to get blown out.

 

Like I have already said Junior...you can't do it that way. That's not a true playoff system and it would solve nothing. As you guys know I am against a playoff. Numbers 9,10,11,12 etc would complain about not getting in so nothing would change. The bowl games would suffer...you can't guarantee that every game matters...No clue how money would get handled...the OOC scheduling/scheduling in general. There are more, but I am drained right now. Everybody thinks they should have played in the NCG even before the BCS. And its more the fans that do the crying. Here is what happens with the BCS...win all your games and you are good to go. (The Utah argument does not count...they need to play someone first and Alabama was a bowl game so that doesn't count either).

 

I watch games every Saturday. Every week matters. I don't do that for any other sport and that is why I love college football. Why would I want to change that to please a bunch of cry babies from the MWC who just want a piece of the pie handed to them and not work for it like the rest of the conferences did.

 

No system will be/is perfect. What worse's, being the number 3 team right now or being the #9 or team in a 8 team playoff? Seems to me an eight game playoff is practical and just, at least as just as a playoff system can be. Regular season will still count, and possibly be even more exciting right down to the final week as there will not be the funnel effect that currently happens at the end of the year. The non-playoff bowl games will still be the same-interesting only to the teams that go to them. Being the #9 team will still suck, but not as bad as being the #3 team. This is why I believe an 8 game playoff system is a very good compromise. Why does it have to be a pure playoff? As far as how to choose the eight team- well that is just details.

[krc1995]

Someone enlighten me as to how a playoff will diminish the regular season? With a playoff, your team loses one or twice you can still fight your way back. You still have to get to the playoffs. As it is now, if you lose, in all probability you are not playing for a NC.

 

You just answered your own question.

 

If you can lose two or three games and still make it to the title game, those two or three losses have not really adversely affected your season. That is what I mean when I say that the regular season games are diminished. Who cares if their team drops a few a long the way if they can still win the national title?

 

and I disagree. Once a team loses, the feeling is the season is over. At least if a team can regroup and rebound, then they can put together a season worthy of being considered a playoff team. After all it should be how good a team finishes rather then how good a team starts. So I don't feel I really answered my own question. As it is now, once you lose your gone.

 

So you don't think it's exciting risking the success or failure of the season on each and every Saturday?

 

 

For like that day. Then comes Sunday and you realize that your season is screwed. It's ok if it is very late, because you've had all year to enjoy the ride, or very early because you might recover. For the other 70% of the season it just sucks.

 

If there is an 8 season playoff you still will have those dramatic highs and lows as you still have to be in the top 8.

[carlfense]

In 1998, Florida State had a loss to NC State. Therefore, both teams in the title game couldn't have been undefeated. There's been huge controversy in how many of the 11 BCS title games? 2000, there was huge controversy putting Florida State in the title game even though Miami beat them head to head and was ahead of them in the human polls. 2001, do we really need to go there. 2003, we put OU in the title game after being manhandled in the Big 12 Championship game. Consequently, the voters were sympathetic that the BCS screwed the pooch and gave USC a share of the title. In 2004, the top 3 ranked BCS teams were undefeated. In fact, 5 of the top 10 teams were undefeated. BCS screwed the pooch again. In 2007, the entire BCS and title game was a mess with the crowned NC losing two games in the regular season to unranked teams. In 2008, it was a complete mess again with the #3 ranked team beating the #1 ranked team head to head. In at least 6 out of the 11 years, the BCS has screwed the pooch. I guess to me this screams overhaul of the system. If we're not going to get it right or even attempt to get it right, we might as well go back to having tie-ins with each bowl.

 

You are correct. FSU had a loss in 98.

 

Just because there is controversy doesn't mean that the system is broken. How much of this controversy is from one team that feels left out or from the media who loves a good "the system is unfair" story? As I said earlier, a playoff will not prevent controversy. It will just shift the controversy to the first team left out.

[carlfense]

OK, let's look at another year. Let's use 2001 as our example. Nebraska lost their last game of the season pretty bad, but under the current system still made the NC game. A lot of people thought Oregon should have played in the game, and a few thought CU should have played in the game because their losses came much earlier in the season and each were thought to be much better teams at the end while Nebraska seemed to be sliding. A playoff would answer these questions while the current system continually has to be changed when these "new" wrinkles show themselves. This isn't like basketball where 64 teams get in. This would be 8 teams getting in where a lot of emphasis would be put on how they did in the "regular" season. The top 8 BCS teams aren't loaded with losses. Last year Texas and USC thought they got shafted. With an 8 team playoff, they could have proven whether or not they did. This is what I want to see. I will puke if another Big 10 team makes it to the NC game this year only to get blown out.

 

Like I have already said Junior...you can't do it that way. That's not a true playoff system and it would solve nothing. As you guys know I am against a playoff. Numbers 9,10,11,12 etc would complain about not getting in so nothing would change. The bowl games would suffer...you can't guarantee that every game matters...No clue how money would get handled...the OOC scheduling/scheduling in general. There are more, but I am drained right now. Everybody thinks they should have played in the NCG even before the BCS. And its more the fans that do the crying. Here is what happens with the BCS...win all your games and you are good to go. (The Utah argument does not count...they need to play someone first and Alabama was a bowl game so that doesn't count either).

 

I watch games every Saturday. Every week matters. I don't do that for any other sport and that is why I love college football. Why would I want to change that to please a bunch of cry babies from the MWC who just want a piece of the pie handed to them and not work for it like the rest of the conferences did.

 

No system will be/is perfect. What worse's, being the number 3 team right now or being the #9 or team in a 8 team playoff? Seems to me an eight game playoff is practical and just, at least as just as a playoff system can be. Regular season will still count, and possibly be even more exciting right down to the final week as there will not be the funnel effect that currently happens at the end of the year. The non-playoff bowl games will still be the same-interesting only to the teams that go to them. Being the #9 team will still suck, but not as bad as being the #3 team. This is why I believe an 8 game playoff system is a very good compromise. Why does it have to be a pure playoff? As far as how to choose the eight team- well that is just details.

 

The DETAILS are what matters.

[krc1995]

See the big picture- don't get bogged down by the minutia

[junior4949]

In 1998, Florida State had a loss to NC State. Therefore, both teams in the title game couldn't have been undefeated. There's been huge controversy in how many of the 11 BCS title games? 2000, there was huge controversy putting Florida State in the title game even though Miami beat them head to head and was ahead of them in the human polls. 2001, do we really need to go there. 2003, we put OU in the title game after being manhandled in the Big 12 Championship game. Consequently, the voters were sympathetic that the BCS screwed the pooch and gave USC a share of the title. In 2004, the top 3 ranked BCS teams were undefeated. In fact, 5 of the top 10 teams were undefeated. BCS screwed the pooch again. In 2007, the entire BCS and title game was a mess with the crowned NC losing two games in the regular season to unranked teams. In 2008, it was a complete mess again with the #3 ranked team beating the #1 ranked team head to head. In at least 6 out of the 11 years, the BCS has screwed the pooch. I guess to me this screams overhaul of the system. If we're not going to get it right or even attempt to get it right, we might as well go back to having tie-ins with each bowl.

 

You are correct. FSU had a loss in 98.

 

Just because there is controversy doesn't mean that the system is broken. How much of this controversy is from one team that feels left out or from the media who loves a good "the system is unfair" story? As I said earlier, a playoff will not prevent controversy. It will just shift the controversy to the first team left out.

 

 

In 2000 when Miami beat Florida State head to head and was ranked higher in all the human polls, you think its ok to put Florida State in the title game? The same can be said about last year. It appears to me that the system as it stands is very hypocritical. We put Florida in the title game because they beat Alabama head to head, but we put OU in the title game even though they lost head to head to Texas? People from all over the country were screaming in 04' when Auburn got totally hosed. Can you imagine the pandemonium in 1997 had Nebraska not gotten a share of the title? If it was quite simply the controversy just from one team, I highly doubt they would "tweak" the BCS equations almost each and every year.

 

For all this talk about the regular season not counting if we have a playoff, tell me when the last time was that the top 10 ranked teams all finished undefeated? The regular season still would count significantly and every team controls its own destiny. The solution for a team to not get left out of the 8 team playoff is to not lose any games. If you lose a game, have a crappy strength of schedule, and whatever else the BCS equation doesn't like; you're probably not going to be one of the top 8 teams. I can't ever remember a time when the #9 team in the final rankings was bitching about not playing for the title. The BCS was formed to put the #1 and #2 teams against each other in one bowl game. All I'm asking for is one more step. Continue to use the BCS formula to rank the top 8 teams. Then seed them accordingly. The #1 and #8 team play, #2 and #7, etc. Obviously, there is still a chance an undefeated team wouldn't get into the playoffs. I believe when Hawaii was undefeated they weren't in the top 8, and I believe there was a year or two where Boise State wouldn't have made it. However, Utah in their two seasons of being undefeated would have. It would answer the question of whether they even belond there or not. I'm not proposing a huge overhaul as the BCS would still rank the teams. It's just one additional step. IMO, it would do nothing more than enhance college football and stir even more excitement.

[carlfense]

In 1998, Florida State had a loss to NC State. Therefore, both teams in the title game couldn't have been undefeated. There's been huge controversy in how many of the 11 BCS title games? 2000, there was huge controversy putting Florida State in the title game even though Miami beat them head to head and was ahead of them in the human polls. 2001, do we really need to go there. 2003, we put OU in the title game after being manhandled in the Big 12 Championship game. Consequently, the voters were sympathetic that the BCS screwed the pooch and gave USC a share of the title. In 2004, the top 3 ranked BCS teams were undefeated. In fact, 5 of the top 10 teams were undefeated. BCS screwed the pooch again. In 2007, the entire BCS and title game was a mess with the crowned NC losing two games in the regular season to unranked teams. In 2008, it was a complete mess again with the #3 ranked team beating the #1 ranked team head to head. In at least 6 out of the 11 years, the BCS has screwed the pooch. I guess to me this screams overhaul of the system. If we're not going to get it right or even attempt to get it right, we might as well go back to having tie-ins with each bowl.

 

You are correct. FSU had a loss in 98.

 

Just because there is controversy doesn't mean that the system is broken. How much of this controversy is from one team that feels left out or from the media who loves a good "the system is unfair" story? As I said earlier, a playoff will not prevent controversy. It will just shift the controversy to the first team left out.

 

 

In 2000 when Miami beat Florida State head to head and was ranked higher in all the human polls, you think its ok to put Florida State in the title game? The same can be said about last year. It appears to me that the system as it stands is very hypocritical. We put Florida in the title game because they beat Alabama head to head, but we put OU in the title game even though they lost head to head to Texas? People from all over the country were screaming in 04' when Auburn got totally hosed. Can you imagine the pandemonium in 1997 had Nebraska not gotten a share of the title? If it was quite simply the controversy just from one team, I highly doubt they would "tweak" the BCS equations almost each and every year.

 

For all this talk about the regular season not counting if we have a playoff, tell me when the last time was that the top 10 ranked teams all finished undefeated? The regular season still would count significantly and every team controls its own destiny. The solution for a team to not get left out of the 8 team playoff is to not lose any games. If you lose a game, have a crappy strength of schedule, and whatever else the BCS equation doesn't like; you're probably not going to be one of the top 8 teams. I can't ever remember a time when the #9 team in the final rankings was bitching about not playing for the title. The BCS was formed to put the #1 and #2 teams against each other in one bowl game. All I'm asking for is one more step. Continue to use the BCS formula to rank the top 8 teams. Then seed them accordingly. The #1 and #8 team play, #2 and #7, etc. Obviously, there is still a chance an undefeated team wouldn't get into the playoffs. I believe when Hawaii was undefeated they weren't in the top 8, and I believe there was a year or two where Boise State wouldn't have made it. However, Utah in their two seasons of being undefeated would have. It would answer the question of whether they even belond there or not. I'm not proposing a huge overhaul as the BCS would still rank the teams. It's just one additional step. IMO, it would do nothing more than enhance college football and stir even more excitement.

 

Both 2000 FSU and 2008 Oklahoma were the result of quirks within the conferences. That finger should probably not be pointed at the BCS, but at the Big 12 and the ACC.