Talking BCS with Harvey Perlman...

[HuskerJen]

If I had my druthers here is how I would institute a playoff system:

1. For every conference that doesn't have 12 teams they would need to expand to 12 teams and would hold a conference championship game.

2. There would be 3 non-conference games and eight conference games...that's 11.

3. With a 16 team playoff system, only two teams would end up playing 15 games and those are the two teams which meet for the national title.

4. Let's count the games under the current system in the Big 12, ACC and SEC for the team that wins the national title:

12 games in the regular season

1 conference title game

1 championship game

That's 14 games right there. Does playing 1 more game really make that much of a difference?

And, let's remember that only the two teams in the NC game will reach that 15 game plateau. For the teams that lose in the first round of the playoffs they'll have played 12 games. Isn't that the length of the current regular season?

5. Most fans do not spend an entire week in the host city of a bowl game. Most show up one or two days prior to the game. Ergo, the "economic impact" portion of the anti-playoff argument falls flat.

6. I think a playoff system would actually generate more revenue than the bowls because more people, as you stated, would be more interested in it.

So you would watch the FAU owls huh? You just get that name, because we have them on the schedule?

7. I'll ignore the implication here and answer the question: Believe it or not there is football outside of the games that involve Nebraska. And yes, I watch as much college football as I possibly can.

And yeah sherlock I am aware that the pac-10 and big 10 have no title game. Did you know that they play everybody in their conference too

So?

The Big 10+1 determines a conference champ without a conference title game and a given team doesn't play every other team in their conference.

The point: It can be done.

 

[HuskerGBR]

If I had my druthers here is how I would institute a playoff system:

1. For every conference that doesn't have 12 teams they would need to expand to 12 teams and would hold a conference championship game.

So who would play in the CCG? You would have to have the two best teams go at it to determine the real winner of the conference to make the playoff more fair. I see a bigger monopoly happening there with the big 12 south schools, but could be wrong. Also you would end up leaving out other schools that wouldn't fit into these conferences. You would still have a MWC with the crappy schools unless you move some of the bigger schools in there and balance it out. I don't see that flying. It would be hard to give them a shot in a playoff if they don't play anyone. Put a Boise State team in the playoff, but LSU doesn't get into the playoff and they have a tougher schedule with the same amount of losses? There would be major complaints with this system.

2. There would be 3 non-conference games and eight conference games...that's 11.

Nothing wrong there.

3. With a 16 team playoff system, only two teams would end up playing 15 games and those are the two teams which meet for the national title.

It would be 16 games with a 16 team playoff and conference championship game which you said you would have, but I see more teams losing more games once you keep adding games which would make it harder to really determine who goes to the playoffs and games wouldn't mean as much as they used to. I like what we have as far that goes right now and it's simple...win your games and you don't have to worry about it. Utah isn't a good example, because they played nobody except Michigan(who sucks really bad right now), TCU, and BYU. Alabama was a bowl game and doesn't factor into their regular season.

4. Let's count the games under the current system in the Big 12, ACC and SEC for the team that wins the national title:

12 games in the regular season

1 conference title game

1 championship game

That's 14 games right there. Does playing 1 more game really make that much of a difference?

And, let's remember that only the two teams in the NC game will reach that 15 game plateau. For the teams that lose in the first round of the playoffs they'll have played 12 games. Isn't that the length of the current regular season?

How is this going to affect players? Meaning will schools that don't get to see any of these games...will they keep slipping from less game experience and the gap between elite schools and regular schools becomes much larger. And it's 15 games if they played 8 team tourney.

Edit- Also forgot that how would this influence recruiting as well? It would be much less time on TV for schools and most recruits would see more of the big schools (but I guess ESPN already does that so might not be a huge impact). What is nice about the bowl system is they get some national coverage and people who wouldn't normally watch the game might watch it.

5. Most fans do not spend an entire week in the host city of a bowl game. Most show up one or two days prior to the game. Ergo, the "economic impact" portion of the anti-playoff argument falls flat.

Most fans can't travel to 3 or 4 games for a playoff. So your playoff argument falls flat as well. But what we have now is we can go to one bowl game and see our team play. Lots of places don't have the fanbases to fill out a stadium like we do. And those 1 or 2 nights are big for cities. How many people did we get to the Gator bowl? I don't remember the count, but take that number and add up all the gas money, hotel fees, food, misc. stuff, and the cost of tickets and it's a big number. It's hard to believe that there wouldn't be an economic effect there. Not to mention will the playoff games move from city to city or just be in one city for the whole event?

6. I think a playoff system would actually generate more revenue than the bowls because more people, as you stated, would be more interested in it.

It might, but there is also the fact that how would that money help the schools? The schools get money for playing in the bowls so how would they deal with all the money that gets pumped into the playoff, plus this takes money away from the smaller schools that get to bowl games and would create a bigger gap in favor of elite schools.

So you would watch the FAU owls huh? You just get that name, because we have them on the schedule?

7. I'll ignore the implication here and answer the question: Believe it or not there is football outside of the games that involve Nebraska. And yes, I watch as much college football as I possibly can.

Low blow by me, sorry about that. But don't tell me you are emotionally invested in those games, because if you are then you are one of the few. I watch as much as I can too, but I won't really care about the game.

And yeah sherlock I am aware that the pac-10 and big 10 have no title game. Did you know that they play everybody in their conference too

So?

The Big 10+1 determines a conference champ without a conference title game and a given team doesn't play every other team in their conference.

The point: It can be done.

Yeah it can be done, but not in a playoff scenario if you want to get a "fair" system like people keep saying. Mostly if we go with what you suggest in this post then we would do a tournament with all the conference winners and the conference winners would be decided by the two best teams going at it no matter the division. That's the only way yours would work, but that would be more in favor of the big schools. Plus that just adds to the confusion on who would be the teams that go in case of three way ties and what not and you would see more of them. And I am assuming you still would want bowl games, yes? They would be greatly diminished by this system whether you think so or not. I see this system you have here having just as many faults and consequences as the BCS.

 

[HUSKER 37]

For some reason I can't use the quote function so Husker37's post is in bold and italics.

Wow! There's still a lot of passion about this tired topic. Is it really that important to crown the "right team" Champion?

Well gee I don't know...

* Is it really that important to make sure an HR manager hires the best, most qualified, person?

* Is it really that important when you take your vehicle to a mechanic that he fixes it right the first time?

* Is it really that important to do your job to the best of your abilities?

* Is it really that important for the Nebraska coaches to follow all NCAA guidelines for recruiting?

The point: If you're not going to do something right then why do it at all?

Apples and Oranges..Or is it Entertainment vs. real life?

I still don't see where a playoff would necessarily get you the "Right team" or that either system is the "Right Way"...It would just get you a DIFFERENT team at the top (probably).

There's only a handful of MNC teams from the past that I feel would go through a playoff unscathed..Does that mean they weren't the best team that year?

The NFL crowns the "best team" (or luckiest) at the end of the season..

As it is now,..We crown the team with the best overall season AND remains hot at the end.

Thus...EVERY game means "life or death"...It's really sweet when a Michigan or a Notre Dame loses a game early in the season, because it means they probably wont be the MNC..but you also have your own games lose some importance if you've already lost one...

I usually only follow the NFL if I recognize one of the players having once been a Husker, or if I happen to have seen him play in High school..I did, however take notice of the Patriots a little when they had their undefeated regular season..

I was reminded by my Son, yesterday that the local team was in the Super Bowl less than six months ago..I'd almost forgot.

Even with a playoff, you're going to run into the Rock State/Paper A&M/Scissors U. thing where so much of your success would depend on who (or where) you would draw as a playoff opponent. (Also..Not always the best team wins).

A vast majority of the time the best team does win.

And taking your point about the best team not winning well that's happening right now: I believe that Nebraska was better than Texas Tech and Virginia Tech last year and we still lost, so what's the difference?

That's my point..What IS the difference?..Just because you have teams in some magical playoff doesn't mean that the best team will win...unless maybe you have each play a best of seven.

I love the fact that I can still get into a shouting match with a Penn State fan or a Mechicken fan about who (would've) won in a head to head in '94 or '97...It'd be almost anticlimactic if we'd actually proved it on the field.

Yes because pointlessly debating that is sooo much fun.

Apparently so..

As opposed to what?

As opposed to giving sound reasons, based on logic and facts which actually can stand on their own merits.

The anti-playoff crowd are probably the same type of people who fought, resisted and argued against the introduction of fire, the wheel and indoor plumbing.

Maybe so...I love the wheel..but I'm still against endangering lives with Photo Radar.

I'm a pyromaniac around the fourth of July, but only use it to cook on the grill the rest of the year.

And indoor plumbing beats pooping outdoors, but once in awhile..it's really really fun to poop in the neighbor's backyard.

I was all for the BCS or even the Bowl Alliance before it first came out.. I was really frustrated that the Big Televen could hide behind the Rose Bowl to escape playing us for a "True National Championship"..Even realizing most of them really wanted to play us..but it was much more enjoyable ribbing them for "hiding" anyway..

I'm also secretly in favor of a "plus One" format...at least the short sighted part of me is.

Long term, I'm still a little concerned it might be a gateway to a full fledged playoff..and the death of the really really important regular season game...Also (Long term) the effect it might have on the delicate balance of controversy and interest.

"The post-season debate over Who's No. 1 is the essence of college football, the jewel cleverly disguised as flaw..."

You see, for me..That's what it breaks down to...That's what makes Div.1 NCAA Football better than any other sport..It's not like Basketball, where you can skip the first 3 1/2 quarters and just watch the end..You are forced to be totally involved throughout the whole season.

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

Not if it's early enough in the season..

When was the last time we had an undefeated team win it all?

Probably never happen if we had playoffs.

But if you lose one of your last three or four games..it's pretty much over..and rightly so.

(I also thought you'd answered your own question quite adequately).

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.

 

[huskerswrkhavoc]

5. Most fans do not spend an entire week in the host city of a bowl game. Most show up one or two days prior to the game. Ergo, the "economic impact" portion of the anti-playoff argument falls flat.

6. I think a playoff system would actually generate more revenue than the bowls because more people, as you stated, would be more interested in it.

I'll address these 2 points.

#5.. Believe it or not, people actually take vacations around the bowl game. They will go out for 4 days to a week to go down and watch the game. Sure not everyone does, but a lot do. So do the families of the staff members of the university, the teams, etc. There are a lot more people that go down than you seem to think. There would be a big economic impact especially on those cities that "under your plan" don't see a playoff game. So unless you are an economist and have drawn it all out, please don't say the economic argument falls flat.

#6.. How? How would it draw more interest? It may draw more interest on the 15 games in the playoff, but not like the other bowl games that do or don't get played. Because of the payouts of each bowl you would have to completely redo the payouts of a playoff system that would be much different than the bowl payouts. And don't say it wouldn't be. I'm not certain here, but I'm pretty certain a playoff would not bring in as much revenue as bowls would. Plus, you have more teams traveling more so the net income would be less than it is now.

And when people talk about how a playoff crowns the true champion they are correct. The true champion, not the true best team. It sickens me when people correlate champion with best. Will anyone really try to argue that Fresno State was the best team in NCAA Baseball in 2008? A team that limped into the NCAA tourney as a 4 seed by winning the WAC tourney. They got hot, and won the CWS. They were no where NEAR the best team all season, they were the hottest team that got a good draw and made a run. Even this year. The 8 best teams were NOT in the CWS.. Because of travel budgets teams get paired differently than they should. LSU and Rice never should of paired up in a Super Regional.

Point is people will still argue with the way things get set up no matter how a playoff works. It isn't a fool proof system and you, Jen, are dodging a majority of questions that people are asking and jumping through the holes they are shooting through your suggested playoff system.

 

[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?

 

[junior4949]

5. Most fans do not spend an entire week in the host city of a bowl game. Most show up one or two days prior to the game. Ergo, the "economic impact" portion of the anti-playoff argument falls flat.

6. I think a playoff system would actually generate more revenue than the bowls because more people, as you stated, would be more interested in it.

I'll address these 2 points.

#5.. Believe it or not, people actually take vacations around the bowl game. They will go out for 4 days to a week to go down and watch the game. Sure not everyone does, but a lot do. So do the families of the staff members of the university, the teams, etc. There are a lot more people that go down than you seem to think. There would be a big economic impact especially on those cities that "under your plan" don't see a playoff game. So unless you are an economist and have drawn it all out, please don't say the economic argument falls flat.

#6.. How? How would it draw more interest? It may draw more interest on the 15 games in the playoff, but not like the other bowl games that do or don't get played. Because of the payouts of each bowl you would have to completely redo the payouts of a playoff system that would be much different than the bowl payouts. And don't say it wouldn't be. I'm not certain here, but I'm pretty certain a playoff would not bring in as much revenue as bowls would. Plus, you have more teams traveling more so the net income would be less than it is now.

And when people talk about how a playoff crowns the true champion they are correct. The true champion, not the true best team. It sickens me when people correlate champion with best. Will anyone really try to argue that Fresno State was the best team in NCAA Baseball in 2008? A team that limped into the NCAA tourney as a 4 seed by winning the WAC tourney. They got hot, and won the CWS. They were no where NEAR the best team all season, they were the hottest team that got a good draw and made a run. Even this year. The 8 best teams were NOT in the CWS.. Because of travel budgets teams get paired differently than they should. LSU and Rice never should of paired up in a Super Regional.

Point is people will still argue with the way things get set up no matter how a playoff works. It isn't a fool proof system and you, Jen, are dodging a majority of questions that people are asking and jumping through the holes they are shooting through your suggested playoff system.

Let's talk about the economic argument. Are you saying that in 97' the fans that went to the Big 12 Championship game didn't go to the NC game against Tennessee? This would be 2 out of the potential 3 games basically if we went to an 8 team playoff especially if we got rid of all the conference championship games. Like I said, if we used the current BCS bowl games to host the playoffs the same cities that would have the BCS bowls still get their big game. Then, you would rotate the final NC game between them just like it is now. The lesser bowls don't even come close to selling out. If you watch those games on TV, there are entire sections with no one there. I don't see how using part of the system we currently have and adding a playoff wrinkle will cause major economic harm.

It would draw more interest than the lesser BCS bowls do now because people would be watching to see who advances. I'd be willing to bet there would be more viewers of a playoff game than there was when Georgia played Hawaii or OU played Boise State, etc. in BCS bowls. The lesser BCS bowls now all of a sudden with the playoffs mean something. The winner will advance while the loser goes home rather than who cares who wins which is kind of how it appears the players and coaches have approached some of the lesser BCS bowl games in years past.

Unlike the NFL playoffs and playoffs in other divisions, these playoffs would still use the BCS formula. The current BCS formula would rank the top 8 teams in the country. Unlike other sports and the NFL, there wouldn't be home field advantage as all games would be played just like the BCS bowls are now in those towns. I guess one could say home field if for instance it's the Organge Bowl and Miami makes it into the playoffs, but that's how it is now for some of the southern teams.

You say not always does the best team wins the NC. Well, this is why they play the games. Even with the current system, it takes quite a bit of luck to win a NC. If we're to crown the best team on paper, why even play any of the games? By having some element of a playoff, we by no means have to totally scrap the current system. I say keep parts of the old system and add a playoff wrinkle. Have the BCS system rank the teams. Then, take the top 8 and have a playoff in December so that a NC can be crowned on New Year's Day.

 

[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?

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.

 

[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?

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.

Again, you're focusing on 1 year out of 10 like it's the rule and not the exception.

 

[junior4949]

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.

 

[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.

How would you determine your 8 teams?

If you use the BCS rankings . . . you run into the same problem except it is going to be number 9 complaining instead of number 3. Nothing would be different . . . it'd just be a different team bitching about being left out. (last year it would have been Boise State, ranked number 9 at the end of the regular season even though they were undefeated.)

Let's use last year as an example if you wanted to use conference champions. If you use the major conference champions (I'd guess Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big East, and a couple other bids) you would certainly have Oklahoma (1 loss), Florida (1 loss), USC (1 loss), Penn State (1 loss), Cincinnati (2 losses), and Georgia Tech (3 losses). How can you say that a 3 loss team potentially advancing to the national title game over one loss (or undefeated!) teams doesn't diminish the regular season?

A playoff solves nothing. The same arguments and questions would remain, particularly when the field is limited to 8 teams.