The Only Way To Make Sure Poor Officiating Calls Don't Ruin A Team's Chances For A NC

[FaninAma]

is to have a playoff. Right now the one loss OU has, thanks to Gordy and his band of senile miscreants, will turn out to be a killer under the BCS format.

If there was a playoff, OU would still be right in the thick of things.

So which system really trivializes the regular season:A system where an early loss craters your chances for a national title even if the loss is undeserved.

Or a system where you have a chance to make up for the loss and win, on the field, a shot in the playoffs?

Sorry, but those of you who are against a playoff need to quit whining about the calls costing us a shot at the national championship.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[stoopified]

Preaching to the choir, brother.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Unless those bad calls happen during the playoffs.

[FaninAma]

Unless those bad calls happen during the playoffs.

At least you made it to the playoffs and had a chance at the title. Right now OU's season is over after 3 whole games as far as any chance for a national title. OU is now playing for pride and the Big 12 championship.

Neutral officiating crews would eliminate the homer type calls from home conference officials not to mention that the quality of officiating would be a lot higher in a playoff game than a regular season game.

[TexasLidig8r]

Fan.. and putting away all smack for the time being, do you honestly believe that this year's OU team is national championship caliber? And if so, what facts and analysis do you base this belief on?

[PDXsooner]

i've always been against a playoff system. auburn getting left out in 2004 made me question it, and this officiating debacle is doing it as well...

[PDXsooner]

Fan.. and putting away all smack for the time being, do you honestly believe that this year's OU team is national championship caliber? And if so, what facts and analysis do you base this belief on?

maybe, maybe not. but being undefeated and in the top ten (which is where OU should be right now) gives OU a realistic shot. and beating texas in two weeks, which is well within reason (you guys dont look so great either) would put OU in the top 6 or 7, and OU would most likely be favored in the rest of their games. if the defense continues to get better, OU has a good a shot as anyone...

[RedstickSooner]

All a playoff would guarantee is that we'd have more 1 and 2 (heck, depending on how absurdly deep you made the playoff, even 3) loss teams "winning" national championships.

The current system means that *every* game is a playoff game -- and the existence of a playoff would do precisely NOTHING to change whether or not bad calls could ruin football.

Like KCMO said - what about when the bad plays happen *during* the playoff?

Playoff has squat to do with bad calls. In fact, the current system is BETTER than a playoff system when it comes to what happens to us.

Let's assume we had a playoff system. You're presuming the bad call would've come early in the season, as it did - however, it just as easily could've come during the playoffs, ESPECIALLY if they're deep (meaning there's too many games for every game to get a top-notch crew, or to have top-notch video equipment, or to get top-notch treatment). Had we lost due to a bad call then, we'd be FINISHED. No protests, no sympathy vote, nada. Season over.

Instead, in this horribly flawed system we currently dwell in, we're as good as a no-loss team right now, BECAUSE of the human factor. Fact is, if we go undefeated from here on out, ALL THE TALKING HEADS ARE GOING TO GET ON OUR JOCK.

They'll do so because we'll make a PERFECT talking point -- they'll harp, ad nauseum, on the fact that we were robbed by the refs, and are, in fact, an "undefeated" team, in spite of our record.

That wouldn't happen with a loss in a playoff system - because once we lost, the talking heads would move their attention on to the teams who were still live.

Unless you're suggesting some kind of double-elimination tournament?

Every game is life-and-death. Yeah, when you've got a good team that just had a bad game, you desperately want a playoff. But the fact is, a good team shouldn't *have* a bad game. And only in college football do we expect our heroes to be without flaws (or very nearly so).

The college football season is woefully short. The last thing I want is to see what few games we have diminished in their importance.

[leavingthezoo]

I'll take this one for Fan,

mack?:mack:

[TopDawg]

I'm certainly in favor of a playoff, but it's a bit misleading to say that it'll ensure that poor officiating calls don't ruin a team's chances for a title.

I mean, that's the same thing we were told about the replay process.

[FaninAma]

Fan.. and putting away all smack for the time being, do you honestly believe that this year's OU team is national championship caliber? And if so, what facts and analysis do you base this belief on?

Their better than expected offensive performance. Plus, you're discounting them based on basically their defensive performance of their fiorst 3 games which, if you had seen all 3 games, you would know that OU's defense has played very well at times.....well enough that I think there's legitimate reason to think that the defense will continue to get better.

I bet you would have written off the 2000 NC team because they didn't look like world beaters in their first 3 games, either.

There's 12 games in the regular season for a reason. It's assinine to essentially lose any chance to contend for the title after 3 games.

BTW, do you objective Horn fans really know what kind of team UT has this year? Are they title contenders? Look at their wins and who they were against. Look at their loss: at home against a team that had to replace 9 starters on defense. And OSU hasn't exactly torn it up offensively against other teams they've played this year.

My point is that it's way to early to start claiming who will be the best team over the course of the season based on 3 or 4 games yet that is exactly what the BSCS does.

[Statalyzer]

OU isn't eliminated yet. If you guys win out and sit at 12-1, there might not be a single undefeated team. And with your only loss by one point, you'd be one of the likely candidates to be selected.

[FaninAma]

Redstick, you're arguments really don't add up. Tell me how having a team get knocked out of the national title race the way OU did this year in any way legitimizes the regular season?

And I noticed you won't even touch the premise that the officiating in a playoff would be of much better quality than the luck-of-the draw system some conferences use where, as is the case with the PAC 10, they scour the local nursing homes for their replay officials.

So what if there are 2 loss teams winning the national championship....at least it will be decided on the field. And if teams aren't afraid of losing an early contest then maybe we will get more of the type of intersectioanl matchups that make college football great.

How soon will it be before Texas schedules an opponent of the quality of Ohio State again? Probably not in your or my lifetimes. Meanwhile, we're lining up tp play LSU, Miami, and Florida State. Which progrram has the better chance of winning another National Title under the current rules?


There is no legitimate reason for not having a playoff. If there were then every other college sport and every other college football division should end their playoff and decide their national champion the same way as the BCS.

[FaninAma]

OU isn't eliminated yet. If you guys win out and sit at 12-1, there might not be a single undefeated team. And with your only loss by one point, you'd be one of the likely candidates to be selected.

Chances are slim to none of that happening, especially considering the Big 12 is down this year and, if the Sooners don't play and beat a one loss Nebraska team in the Big 12 championship game, slim just left town.

OU would have to be one of only 2 one-loss teams to be in the national title game.

[GreenSooner]

The current system means that *every* game is a playoff game -- and the existence of a playoff would do precisely NOTHING to change whether or not bad calls could ruin football.
...
Every game is life-and-death. Yeah, when you've got a good team that just had a bad game, you desperately want a playoff. But the fact is, a good team shouldn't *have* a bad game. And only in college football do we expect our heroes to be without flaws (or very nearly so).
This argument doesn't hold water. When -- and only when -- the season ends with precisely two undefeated teams, then, retrospectively (and only retrospectively) every game was a playoff game. It's only retrospectively true because any outcome other than two and only two undefeated teams means that this isn't the case, and one cannot assume that it will be the case as the games are being played.

If there are more than two undefeated teams, then -- surprise -- it turns out that those undefeated squads that don't make the BCS championship game were playing no playoff games throughout the season. And if there are one or no undefeated teams, suddenly the losses of the teams that do make the BCS championship weren't "playoffs," but everybody else's losses were.

Bottom line is that, under the BCS, teams simply don't control their own destinies, and that means nothing is a playoff game, even if things turn out exactly the right way for them to look, in retrospect, as if everything was.

As for the notion that the current system requires perfection....again, I'd disagree. What it requires is inordinate luck. And not just luck within one's own games (which is a part of every sport), but luck involving entirely unrelated contests. OU's season now depends on what Auburn, USC, Ohio State, Louisville, and West Virginia do (as it would have even if we'd been allowed to take the victory we earned at Autzen Stadium). That's ridiculous whether or not you've been ducked by some incompetent officials.

[nautiduck]

Oh my God. You beat up on Middle Tennessee and now you're a national title contender?? Hee Hee. Oregon scored two touchdowns in 72 seconds on you. 501 yards. Forget the bad official call. OU is a good team but not anywhere near national championship caliber. What are you people smoking out there??

[PDXsooner]

Oh my God. You beat up on Middle Tennessee and now you're a national title contender?? Hee Hee. Oregon scored two touchdowns in 72 seconds on you. 501 yards. Forget the bad official call. OU is a good team but not anywhere near national championship caliber. What are you people smoking out there??

i'm sorry, but what on earth would an oregon fan know about winning national titles?

[StoopTroup]

Oh my God. You beat up on Middle Tennessee and now you're a national title contender?? Hee Hee. Oregon scored two touchdowns in 72 seconds on you. 501 yards. Forget the bad official call. OU is a good team but not anywhere near national championship caliber. What are you people smoking out there??
I think it's more like...what are you smoking?

Your team is in the Top 15 in the country because of a 14 point comeback in the 4th qtr on your home turf. On top of that...the outcome of the game isn't anything you should be boasting about. Your darn lucky to be 3-0 for the season.

You finally beat us...to bad it wasn't fair and square.

Our loss to you means nothing to us.

Talk about folks who need to get over s**t. Your pathetic.

[MamaMia]

The replay officials should be flown in from clear across the country and bad officials should be fired.

[TheGodfather889]

With the defense as bad as is I don't think OU is good enough to win a National Title. You need defense to win a National Championship and OU doesn't have that.

[SoonerFanInAustin]

We just have to keep winning games. Honestly, I don't care how ugly we win. There are a lot teams rated in front of us that have to play each other. We beat Texas, it can get interesting. We just have to take care of our business.

[TrophyCollector]

For the 1 millionth time, a playoff would RUIN college football!!!

Do you really want to go into the last game of the regular season and see us starting 3rd teamers against sheep st. because we already have the number 1 seed locked up? It would be just like those great NFL week 15 / 16 games.

College football is great because the 2nd game of the season, on national TV you are down to Alabama with the National Title hopes fading away when Renaldo Works breaks off a couple of great runs to save them.

And yes it SUCKS when you lose the first game of the season to TCU, but it would SUCK a lot more if it there were meaningless losses.

[GregJackP]

Sorry Trophy, but a playoff is the only way to do it - the BCS system sure isn't working.

[TrophyCollector]

Sorry Trophy, but a playoff is the only way to do it - the BCS system sure isn't working.

Hmm, it has seemed to work out most years. Much better than in the old days when you could play your bowl game against some #23 team and be voted National Champion.

Perfect - nope, love it - nope, but I stand by my points that the LACK of a playoff contributes to the greatness of college football.

You would take having a playoff even if it meant us mailing it in against sheepbangers or Tech and losing just to keep our starters healthy? That'd be f'ing sad to see 50K show up for the last home game of the season because everyone knew we weren't going to try and win anyway.

[FaninAma]

Hmm, it has seemed to work out most years. Much better than in the old days when you could play your bowl game against some #23 team and be voted National Champion.

Perfect - nope, love it - nope, but I stand by my points that the LACK of a playoff contributes to the greatness of college football.

You would take having a playoff even if it meant us mailing it in against sheepbangers or Tech and losing just to keep our starters healthy? That'd be f'ing sad to see 50K show up for the last home game of the season because everyone knew we weren't going to try and win anyway.

Most years just doesn't cut it when you're talking about crowing a champion. and I would strongly disagree the BCS even works most years. Since 2000 there have been several deserving teams left out of a chance to win the title on the field:
Miami in 2000, Oregon in 2001, 2002 it worked, 2003 was a complete fiasco, 2004 Auburn, 2005 it worked out.

So in 6 years the BCS has gotten it right 33% of the time....and you're defending that system?

Just wait until OU is the Auburn of 2004 or the Oregon of 2001. We'll see how you like it then.

You probably thought expanding the NCAA basketball tournament would ruin that sport, too.

And if you're playing for seedings and home field advantage a team is never going to "mail it in".
That argument is just plain nonsensical.

[Stoop Dawg]

Hmm, it has seemed to work out most years.

Which years are those?

[TrophyCollector]

[
And if you're playing for seedings and home field advantage a team is never going to "mail it in".
That argument is just plain nonsensical.

Have you watched the last couple of weeks of an NFL regular season?

[FaninAma]

Have you watched the last couple of weeks of an NFL regular season?

Yes I have and none of the NFL teams that are fighting for homefield advantage bench their starters. The NFL onlyhas 26 teams so it doesn't compare to college football where your perception by the pollsters and record would still be important to gaining a good seeding.

If a team's coaches are stupid enough to bench their starters and lose home field advantage or hurt their seeding then they deserve to be fired. I can't recall of an instance where that happened. And I just can't fathom a scenario where all 8 seedings have been determined for a college football 8 team playoff before the final weekend of the regular season.

You're throwing out a strawman argument that doesn't even have any straw. A college team pulling their starters in a game just would not happen because a loss might even knock you out of the playoffs all together.

[Stoop Dawg]

I just wanted say that I agree with pretty much everything Fan has said in this thread.

Since I'm wrong about 98% of the time, that doesn't bode well for him. ;)

[TrophyCollector]

Yes I have and none of the NFL teams that are fighting for homefield advantage bench their starters. The NFL onlyhas 26 teams so it doesn't compare to college football where your perception by the pollsters and record would still be important to gaining a good seeding.

If a team's coaches are stupid enough to bench their starters and lose home field advantage or hurt their seeding then they deserve to be fired. I can't recall of an instance where that happened. And I just can't fathom a scenario where all 8 seedings have been determined for a college football 8 team playoff before the final weekend of the regular season.

You're throwing out a strawman argument that doesn't even have any straw. A college team pulling their starters in a game just would not happen because a loss might even knock you out of the playoffs all together.

So if we had this playoff system last year then USC and Texass would not have already locked home field advantage going into their final game? If it were an 8 team format with the last game or maybe last two games at a neutral site, they probably would have already locked a home seed by the final week.

Take whatever playoff format you like (except maybe the BCS + 1 format which I would be in favor of), it will make regular season games less important than they are today. Part of the greatness of college football is that the entire season is a playoff and every game is for National Championship. You almost always need to run the table from start to finish to win it all and that makes them a lot harder to earn and a lot more special when you do.

10-2, 9-3, 9-2 teams should not have a shot at the National Title just because they are playing great at the end of the season.

[Stoop Dawg]

Part of the greatness of college football is that the entire season is a playoff and every game is for National Championship. You almost always need to run the table from start to finish to win it all and that makes them a lot harder to earn and a lot more special when you do.

Part of the lunacy of college football is that there is rarely a unanimous national champion. Even if you run the table from start to finish you have no idea whether you'll be the "champion" or "co-champion" or "self-proclaimed champion". Hell, 50 years later people will still be telling you that you didn't really deserve it - just ask Bama.

What a stupid system.

[FaninAma]

I can't imagine any system making the majority of the regular season more trivial than the current BCS system. If you're in the WAC or or Mountain West you don't have a chance at all of winning a title. That means you start out playing,what in essence, is a futile regular season. If TCU goes undefeated this season they have no chance to play for the title. How can you render the regualr season any more meaningless than that? For dozens and dozens of teams the BCS has rendered the regular season worthless even before it starts.

If you're in a power BCS conference like the SEC or Big 12 one loss seriously damages your chances for a title so it is insane for a program to schedule very many out of conference game against other top programs knowing that a tough early road loss really makes the rest of your season meaningless. Again, how does a playoff trivialize the regular season any more than that? Not to mention the fact that the pressure to win every game leads to the scheduling of weak non-conference games by the handful of "name" teams in the power conferences that do have a chance to win the title under the BCS rules. That further erodes the quality of the regular season....especially for the fans.

The current out of conference games suck! Games like Ohio State-Texas and even OU-Oregon will become less and less frequent leaving us with KSU, Okie state like schedules, and we all know those type games really contribute a lot to a meaningful regular season. :rolleyes:

[boomrsoonr]

Man, I have a headache now. I didn't read all the responses so maybe this was addressed before.

Seems to me that when we lost to KState in the CCG everyone was griping how you could lose early (ala FSU in 2000) but were screwed if you lost late. It also seems to me that we were a good enough team to still make it to the Sugar Bowl. So most of this bickering is moot. What we have to do is play ball like champions. Not just win out. And that needs to happen whether we're 10-1 or 11-0 at the end of the season.

We could just as easily be 4-0 right now but we definately have not looked like a championship caliber team. If you don't believe me, take off your crimson colored glasses and go read the 4 game threads that currently exist. And then take into account the opponent. I for one do not want to go to another Championship Bowl Game and get blown away by our opponent because we aren't playing up to that level.

I'll take a Big 12 championship any day of the week since our three biggest rivals (Texas, OSU, and Nebraska) are in the same conference.

I don't understand people that base the success or failure of a team by whether or not it's in the MNC game every year.

[FaninAma]

So if we had this playoff system last year then USC and Texass would not have already locked home field advantage going into their final game?

Are you serious? If Texas had lost to TAMU or Colorado or USC had olst to UCLA I am quite sure they would have lost home field advantage in the playoffs. A one loss Penn State would have replaced either one of them in the number 2 position.

[TrophyCollector]

Are you serious? If Texas had lost to TAMU or Colorado or USC had olst to UCLA I am quite sure they would have lost home field advantage in the playoffs. A one loss Penn State would have replaced either one of them in the number 2 position.

Why? They both had 1 loss. Does losing your final game of the season knock you out of the #1 or #2 spot? Obviously not.

[MI Sooner]

We already have a playoff. Two teams get in. They're selected using a mixture of subjective (human polls) and objective (computer rankings) factors. I think the selection process is a good one, although I think the AP poll should be used (not sure why the AP has any say about whether or not the BCS can use their poll). The selection process definately seems better than having a bunch of ADs select the teams, a la the basketball tournament.

I think you can make a strong argument that the field should be expanded, and IMHO, 6 teams would be about right, but I think 16 would be just as bad as two, just in the other direction. I don't like seeing mediocre teams win the championship, which can and does happen from time to time in basketball. Obviously, they aren't playing mediocre basketball during the tournament, but an 11(?) loss Indiana team almost won the championship five years ago. I think the basketball tournament would be much better with fewer teams and a best-of-three format.

Expanding the football playoff would make some games less meaningful (e.g., OU/Texas when we're both undefeated) and some games more meaningful (e.g, OU/OSU when we already have two losses). I guess I'd like to see a system that ensured every undefeated team would get in, plus the most highly ranked (human & computer) teams with a loss. Seed them, give the best teams a bye and a home game, and have the championship at a pre-determined neutral site. That's my $0.02.

[FaninAma]

Why? They both had 1 loss. Does losing your final game of the season knock you out of the #1 or #2 spot? Obviously not.

Yes , it does. There will never, ever be another situation like OU in 2003. And it's funny how the defenders always point to the rare exceptions to the norm rather than the the way college football seasons usually play out. In almost every other season if a team loses late they drop in the polls. Only the crappy BCS system allowed OU to stay as the number 2 team.

Last year if either USC or Texas loses they drop below Penn State.

The BCS is not a playoff. A playoff doesn't leave out teams like Miami in 2000, Oregon in 2001, USC in 2003, or Auburn, Boise State and Utah in 2004. The BCS is a glorified beauty contest with most of the power of deciding the champion left in the hands of the talking heads at ESPN, sport writers like Berry Tramel and the behind-the-scenes powerbrokers of the major BCS conferences.

And how can any true fan of the game really endorse a system that gives no shot to over half of the D-1 teams in regards to winning the national championship even before the season starts?

It's just sad, really, really sad that there are still so many "fans" who feel a playoff wouldn't boost college football into the biggest sporting spectacle and sporting event in the world. I'm sure you wouldn't have advised the Wright Brothers to go for it at Kitty Hawk, either.

[Egeo]

without reading every post - let me give you the golden goose

advantages of 6 teams:
playoff includes only 5% of 1a teams
makes a great natural divider by losses (1-2 instead of 0-1 or 2-3)
the best 2 are rewarded by giving them a bye week
top 4 teams get home field advantage for one game
no "mailing it in" for 2 reasons listed above
8 teams get deep into 2-3 loss squads (unworthy teams)
4 teams in a playoff usually leaves you asking why 1 loss meechigan got in over 1 loss florida state
the nfl was smart enough to choose it for each conference
maximum of only 2 extra games played by teams
the extra games would make a ton of money
with such a small playoff, there still are no meaningless games (you lose twice and you're pretty much out)

having said this (and i may add more later); i still prefer the bcs over the old system

[TrophyCollector]

Yes , it does. There will never, ever be another situation like OU in 2003. And it's funny how the defenders always point to the rare exceptions to the norm rather than the the way college football seasons usually play out. In almost every other season if a team loses late they drop in the polls. Only the crappy BCS system allowed OU to stay as the number 2 team.

Last year if either USC or Texas loses they drop below Penn State.

The BCS is not a playoff. A playoff doesn't leave out teams like Miami in 2000, Oregon in 2001, USC in 2003, or Auburn, Boise State and Utah in 2004. The BCS is a glorified beauty contest with most of the power of deciding the champion left in the hands of the talking heads at ESPN, sport writers like Berry Tramel and the behind-the-scenes powerbrokers of the major BCS conferences.

And how can any true fan of the game really endorse a system that gives no shot to over half of the D-1 teams in regards to winning the national championship even before the season starts?

It's just sad, really, really sad that there are still so many "fans" who feel a playoff wouldn't boost college football into the biggest sporting spectacle and sporting event in the world. I'm sure you wouldn't have advised the Wright Brothers to go for it at Kitty Hawk, either.

Don't disagree with Ama, you'll get quote marks around your fandom.

How are you so certain something that just happened 3 years ago will never happen again? Had Texas lost the Big XII title game last year, it would have been the exact same scenario.

And ALL D1 teams DO have a shot at the BCS title. It one ever schedules and beats 2 or 3 of the top teams in the BCS conferences, they'll get a shot. Or are you sure that WILL NEVER happen also?

Does this system give you a "true" champion? No. Is it the most "fair"? No. Is it s million times better than the old system? Yes. Would a playoff diminish the importance of the regular season to some degree? Yes. And that is the reason I don't want to see it.

That doesn't mean I'm not a "fan" or a "true fan" or that I am a backward *** old fart who thinks that airplanes are the debil. I just don't agree with you.

Good mornin' to ya.

[Octavian]

I'm heavily on the anti-playoff side of the argument for several reasons

1.) Other than possibly major league baseball, college football has the richest history of any American sport and a playoff would cheapen the historical accomplishments of teams' past.

Don't think for a second that pre-playoff championships wouldn't quickly lose some of their clout.

Every loser fanbase in America would love to wipe the slate clean...start over from scratch. The FIRST TRUE NATIONAL CHAMPION would be crowned (so the argument would go) from whomever won the innaugural abomination.

Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, Ohio St., Michigan, Texas, Miami.....we'd all spend half our time justifying why our 19__ title was still legitimate while every Aggy/Michigan St./Oklahoma St./wannabe group would constantly say otherwise.

And after a decade or so....maybe two...they'd be right.

A new generation that grew up w/ the playoff system would come into influence in the media markets and they'd eventually scoff at NC accomplishments in the pre-playoff era.


2.) The large, grey area of the sport is one of the things that make it incredibly unique.

There aren't any NFL message boards where a team's rival gets a constant bitchslap b/c they "won" the faux half of the 1970 championship.

Debating whether Charles Woodson and the Wolverine D could've stuffed Frosty the Quarterback and Dr. Tom's offense or whether or not Washington could've hung w/ Miami make the college football experience tre cool.

Who was the more deserving team in 2003? Their are two fanbases forever linked over the argument...

It's like the Heisman race...you know it's subjective....you know it's flawed, but you hang on it's every twist and turn.

3.) There's something cool about hanging on every play. Every single down.

In a playoff system, Torrence's interception in College Station wouldn't have been nearly as sweet. We'd still have gone crazy and been happy we'd won...but as it is now, we knew it saved us. It kept as alive to survive and advance to the next round.

In a playoff system, Torrence could've dropped that ball and we would've gotten over really quickly...cause hey, we'll still make the playoffs.

4.) Championship-ending upsets happen thoughout a college football season like they happen in March Madness.

Anyone who watched the Boston College kick sail through the uprights against Notre Dame in '93 knew the Irish were done. It was over....they had the title in their hands and they blew it.

Same w/ Billy's fumble in Lincoln in '78.

The KSU loss to A&M in '98 would've been like Kentucky's '96 SEC championship game loss in basketball before they swept through on their way to the NC. They lost...but it didn't mean anything.

Which brings us to...

5.) Perfection.

It's what we all strive for different areas of life but of course, it never happens. Except for national champions in college football.

The last perfect national champ in college basketball was Indiana in the late '70s. There's been one perfect Super Bowl champion. Of course no NBA or MLB perfect champions. But in college football, to win a championship...your beloved team almost always has to achieve perfection.

Not all the time...some slip through the cracks. The '85 Sooners, the '93 Criminoles, the '03 Bayou Bengals. If this happens...then you got lucky, and good for you. The football gods smiled upon you..

But the magic feeling of a fanbase knowing they have to go undefeated to achieve the pinnacle of the sport....and then doing it...is priceless (ask the Trojan fanbase if '03 or '04 was more special for them...or ask yourself if '85 or '00 was more special for you...)

Magical seasons (Tennessee '98, OU '00, tOSU '02, Texas '05 - to name a few recent champs who won the title and probably weren't the most talent rich team of that year) don't come around that often for any fanbase...and when it happens...it's very special.

Playoffs rob us of that....it cheapens it and it makes us think a 10-2 season is an incredible campaign because we get a first round bye. No thanks.

6.) Don't lose, don't whine.

It always seems the biggest play-off advocates are the Michigan St.'s of the world...they know they're not gonna pull of an undefeated year...never will.

So, they want extra innings.

Likewise, most teams that claim to have been "left-out" of the NC Game almost always have a loss: '93 ND, '00 Miami, '01 Oregon, '03 USC....but still whine about not getting to play for a championship.

There were some genuine screw jobs: the pre-BCS big loser that I always felt sorry for was '94 Penn St.: just an incredible team who got leapfrogged by Nebraska and couldn't play them in the Orange Bowl because of their Rose Bowl tie-in. But that was before the BCS...we fixed that.

So what about Auburn in '04? That wasn't fair right? No, it wasn't. But...it was an extremely rare case in which three undefeateds from major conferences made it through. Southern Cal and Oklahoma are traditional superpowers. Auburn...not so much. Utah...please.

If they want to get the benefit of the doubt...win more. Win consistently. Win a lot...for a number of years, or decades. Make your program an elite one who's name comes to mind when the sport is mentioned.

Then, you get the perks that come along w/ having a Trojan or a Paperclip on your helmet.

So, Auburn...have a Coke and a smile and STFU.

That seems harsh but the alternative is a play-off and, as you can see (if you actually read past the first sentence or two :) ) I think a playoff would be absolutely awful.

[DUCKHUNTDAVE]

A playoff system would crown a true Champion. Trophy, I don't think any teams "mail it in" the last 2 games of the season for reasons already stated, but let's say you're right. Would I trade OU "mailing it in" for them to play in a 6 team playoff w/ teams like Ohio State, Texas, Notre Dame, etc....How exciting would that be? It would be unreal, the atmosphere would be electric. Every playoff game would be like the Rose Bowl last year. And for those that believe the regular season games wouldn't be as important? They would be as important as they are now. You still have to get in the top 6, or you don't go to the big show. So, how can u say they would have less importance? You'd still hang on the edge of your seat, and want OU to win every game to get into the top 6. I think a playoff system is the only way, and critics who say it can't be done due to academics are full of s. It's all about the money, and there's got to be someone smart enough to distribute the money like it is now in the BCS. You could still have bowl games outside of the playoff system for the rest of the pack. Geez, this would totally eliminate any controversy. Is there any controversy in the NFL of who the Super Bowl Champ is? No. World Series? No. March Madness? No. The only controversy I can possibly see is between who's on the bubble like #8 and #7 in the Nation who barely miss the cut. Playoffs are needed. I would almost guarantee playoffs will happen someday, why not get them started in 2007?

[OU_Sooners75]

At least you made it to the playoffs and had a chance at the title. Right now OU's season is over after 3 whole games as far as any chance for a national title. OU is now playing for pride and the Big 12 championship.

Neutral officiating crews would eliminate the homer type calls from home conference officials not to mention that the quality of officiating would be a lot higher in a playoff game than a regular season game.


How is OUr season over?

I do not see 1 team being undefeated from a true BCS conference (big east doesnt apply).

If we take care of business the rest of the season, we will finish 12-1 before the bowls.

We were 12-1 in 2003 and still made the BCS Title game....So I fail to see how our season is ruined.

OU Win big 12
OU gets to a BCS Game
OU might be in the MNC game still.


Dont fret. We have to worry about saxeT right now....not some trivial bullcrap.

[OU_Sooners75]

Chances are slim to none of that happening, especially considering the Big 12 is down this year and, if the Sooners don't play and beat a one loss Nebraska team in the Big 12 championship game, slim just left town.

OU would have to be one of only 2 one-loss teams to be in the national title game.


12-1****

The voters know who should have won that game...and that may end up benefitting OU more than that 1 in the L column will hurt us.

remember, 2/3rd of the BCS formula is the Human factor.

[FaninAma]

12-1****

The voters know who should have won that game...and that may end up benefitting OU more than that 1 in the L column will hurt us.

remember, 2/3rd of the BCS formula is the Human factor.

The Sooners will have to be one of only 2 one loss teams to be in the title game provided there are no undefeated teams. Even if we finish with no more losses there is no way a rational person can argue that the "loss" in Eugene didn't seriously damage OU's chances for a title.

Octavian, so the gest of what you find charming about the current( and past) systems is that we can sit around and reminise about, argue and discuss who the champion is or was in past years. That's actually the main reason I detest the system......the champion is crowned like a beauty queen. They don't actually earn it on the field of play.

If there were a playoff I think the legends and lore that eminated out of the heroics(and falures) during these games would surpass any tales from previous years. When you think of of MLB, the NFL and the NBA the most glorious stories are of the achievements, and failures, that came during the playoffs:

Johnny Unitas rallying the Colts against the Giants, Pittsburg's Emaculate reception, Drew Pearson's/Roger Staubach's Hail Mary pass against the Vikings.

What are the memories you have from Michael Joprdan's career...scoring 70 against Atlanta during the regular season or his heroics during game 7 during the playoffs?

How about Kurt Schillings gutty performance pitching through a painful injury as he helped the Red Sox end the Curse of the Bambino?

The stories and the history would only be enriched by elevating the college game to the biggest stage in the world of sports.

[Octavian]

Octavian, so the gest of what you find charming about the current( and past) systems is that we can sit around and reminise about, argue and discuss who the champion is or was in past years. That's actually the main reason I detest the system......the champion is crowned like a beauty queen. They don't actually earn it on the field of play.

If there were a playoff I think the legends and lore that eminated out of the heroics(and falures) during these games would surpass any tales from previous years....

The stories and the history would only be enriched by elevating the college game to the biggest stage in the world of sports.

possibly...I agree w/ some of what you have to say but still haven't seen a hypothetical playoff solution that I'd trade for the current format.

If there were some sort of absolute guarantee that'd it never go beyond 4 teams...I might give it a go. But they'd expand it...they always do.

If it were used only as a tie-breaker like the '04 situation, I might go for it...but again, some whiney 1-loss team would sneak in and three undefeateds would get shortchanged because of it...

it's just a matter of oppinion for me...college football is weird, it's quirky...and I like that.

in any event, actually forming a playoff system w/ the bowls and trying to figure out how entire fanbases could feasibly travel to several expensive destinations in the span of a month and fill up the ticket allotments will keep the playoff option at bay for awhile.

I see your point though.

[FaninAma]

Octavian, the NFL doesn't have their playoffs at neutral locations. Neither does MLB or the NBA. Why would college football be any different. Reward the teams who had the best regular seasons with homefield advantage. It would work.

A playoff doesn't lessen the importance of or trivialize the regular season....it builds upon it and elevates the sport into an entirely different arena where the events and players are elevated to an entirely different plane. So by comparison, what happens in a playoff will be remembered by more people and for a longer period of time than what transpired in the regular season. Sports is about achievement and having the opportunity to achieve in the brightest spotlight possible. In college D-1 football, we don't have a spotlight, we have a 40 watt light bulb called the BCS.

[The Maestro]

So to all of you who think that everybody is gonna lose this year, tell me this.

If Ohio State wins Saturday night in Iowa(yes, their best chance to lose)who beats them this year? Lloyd Carr?!?!

Who beats Auburn? They get all tough games at home and they already beat the best team they will face this year in LSU.

Who beats USC? Sorry, kids. This team runs the table and will be double digit favorites the rest of the year. And they have a defense again.

Who beats Louisville or West Virginia? Sure, they play each other, but the winner should remain unbeaten.

I think it could be up to four unbeaten teams at the end of year, definitely not just 1 team.

[Octavian]

Fan, I just don't think we're gonna agree on this one but I think it's a good conversation....


the NFL doesn't have their playoffs at neutral locations. Neither does MLB or the NBA. Why would college football be any different.

bowls (and yes, I think there are way too many).

What are you going to do w/ all the bowl games that pump millions of dollars into all the conferences each year?

There are currently 32 bowl games that allow 64 college squads to play in the post-season. You wanna 64 team play-off?

That's the only way everyone would go for it b/c not one athletic conference or academic institution is going to vote in favor of less teams playing in the post-season....that means losing money.


Reward the teams who had the best regular seasons with homefield advantage.


A playoff doesn't lessen the importance of or trivialize the regular season.

In my view, these two statements are contradictory because, like the 2000 A&M situation....the win wouldn't have meant nearly as much b/c Marshall could've dropped the ball and we'd still have been happy w/ gaining home-field advantage and moving on.

Although we would've lost, the national title would be just as in reach as it was before the loss w/ us sitting at a probable 11-1 record heading into the playoffs.

Losses wouldn't mean as much. Upsets wouldn't mean as much...it would cheapen the regular season.

JMO.

[boomrsoonr]

Fan, I just don't think we're gonna agree on this one but I think it's a good conversation....



bowls.

What are you going to do w/ all the bowl games that pump millions of dollars into all the conferences each year?

There are currently 32 bowl games that allow 64 college squads to play in the post-season. You wanna 64 team play-off?

That's the only way everyone would go for it b/c not one athletic conference or academic institution is going to vote in favor of less teams playing in the post-season....that means losing money.





In my view, these two statements are contradictory because, like the 2000 A&M situation....the win wouldn't have meant nearly as much b/c Marshall could've dropped the ball and we'd still have been happy w/ gaining home-field advantage and moving on.

Although we would've lost, the national title would be just as in reach as it was before the loss w/ us sitting at a probable 11-1 record heading into the playoffs.

Losses wouldn't mean as much. Upsets wouldn't mean as much...it would cheapen the regular season.

JMO.


And before anyone says "have the bowl games before or after the playoff", that won't work either. Could you imagine the crap if the National Champion went to a bowl game after the playoffs and lost?

Plus, you have to think about the kids and their studies. They're already time scrunched. Grades would suffer. Not to mention injuries could skyrocket and ruin chances for them to get drafted to the more lucrative NFL.

[Stoop Dawg]

I'm heavily on the anti-playoff side of the argument for several reasons

Wow. Just ... wow.

I guess the good ol' boy system is pretty great when you're one of the good ol' boys.

[Stoop Dawg]

And before anyone says "have the bowl games before or after the playoff", that won't work either. Could you imagine the crap if the National Champion went to a bowl game after the playoffs and lost?

Plus, you have to think about the kids and their studies. They're already time scrunched. Grades would suffer. Not to mention injuries could skyrocket and ruin chances for them to get drafted to the more lucrative NFL.

Obviously the 6-8 teams in the playoff wouldn't participate in the bowl games.

[Stoop Dawg]

Losses wouldn't mean as much. Upsets wouldn't mean as much...it would cheapen the regular season.

As Fan explained earlier, it's exactly the opposite. For the 117 teams that DO NOT go undefeated, the games after that first loss are actually MORE meaningful with a playoff.

[Octavian]

Wow. Just ... wow.

I guess the good ol' boy system is pretty great when you're one of the good ol' boys.

Absolutely.

Between waking up in the mid-mornings and cruisin' on Soonerfans all day...I also sit on the bowl committee for the Fedex Orange Bowl and act as exuctive VP for the Rose Bowl presented by Citi - a company which I just happen to be sole majority shareholder.

Next time OU goes, peem me and I can get you some sweet luxury box seats.

[Octavian]

For the 117 teams that DO NOT go undefeated, the games after that first loss are actually MORE meaningful with a playoff.

and to that I say, "don't lose."

If you want to play for the national title in college football, then don't lose.

1.) What's the motivation to achieve perfection in the regular season w/ a playoff system? Get a great seed for the playoff in order to best position yourself for the national title down the line.

2.) What's the motivation to achieve perfection in the regular season w/out a playoff system? Play for the national title right away.

3.) What's so bad about losing during the regular season w/ a playoff system? It hurts your chances of getting one of the best seeds in the playoffs, thereby decreasing your chances to play for a national title.

4,) What's so bad about losing during the regular season w/out a playoff system?
You're pretty much out.

As is, a college football regular season is about striving to play for -and win- the national championship on every single Saturday.

With a playoff, the college football regular season is about positioning yourself in the best possible way for the playoffs.


A playoff system would fundamentally alter the nature of college football because it would cheapen the regular season.

[SleestakSooner]

Fan.. and putting away all smack for the time being, do you honestly believe that this year's OU team is national championship caliber? And if so, what facts and analysis do you base this belief on?

JFC! That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point of the original post. What a lame attempt to slag on the Sooners.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

the playoffs wouldnt stop moaning and crying...look at the basketball tournament...there is like 240 teams that get in and 15 teams and their fans cry and have fits

[Octavian]

the playoffs wouldnt stop moaning and crying...look at the basketball tournament...there is like 240 teams that get in and 15 teams and their fans cry and have fits

yep...exactly.

some 10-2 or 9-3 team is going to actually feel shafted b/c they didn't get the 8th spot.

The 9-3 Florida Gators feel robbed b/c they finished #9 instead of getting to play for the national title...well, the only logical solution is to expand the playoffs to 16 teams to avoid such an injustice.

Then 32....

Hey...welcome to playoffs in college football....where a 10-2 season makes you feel like your team deserves to play for it all...

Not that that's cheapening the regular season or anything....

[stoops the eternal pimp]

plus OU was screwed 2 times in 6 games. whose to say we wouldnt get screwed in the playoffs

[Luthor]

There may be some good news in this whole thing by the end of this year. If we end up with a half dozen teams with 1 loss each all knotted up together come end of December the NCAA will have to throw in the towel. They have no mechanism to sort out that degree of complexity to the satisfaction of all parties at stake. I hope this is exactly what happens because it will take some kind of catastrophic melt down to force a playoff. Four teams denied even the chance to play for the MNC might be enough to force the NCAA to pressure all those guttless school presidents ands regents who run from a playoff to give in.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

The ncaa cant even control referees..they sure cant overrule college presidents

[noobalicious]

Well, I usually find myself a supporter of college football playoff, albeit limited in scope. However, Octavian made me think a little bit and I can really see both sides of the argument. I don't necessarily think that instituting a playoff would make the regular season less exciting or meaningful, but it is kind of fun to think that every game you are playing for a spot in the championship and once you finally fail then you're out.

Yet, I think if you limit it enough, this won't be like the NFL season where you know you can have 6 or 7 (or God forbid 8) losses and still get in, otherwise you're playing for seeding. There are enough teams every year with 0 or 1 loss seasons that one loss would be painful with a playoff and you know if you lose anymore you're out of it. Even with 1 loss you could very well be out of it, if they limit the number of teams in the playoff enough. I think there is still plenty of motivation to win out...and every year some team will, but at least if you suffer a close loss to a quality opponent early in the year and then redeem yourself...you have a shot again.

I'd say use the BCS style system to determine who gets in, if we ever did have a playoff. I'd be a fan of any of the following number of teams for the playoff: 4, 6 or 8. I tend to like either 4 or 6 because usually the top 4 or 5 teams in the country are really superb and then there is a noticeable dropoff after that. As far as payouts, instead of having it clear cut like the bowls, just pay according to how far you get. Just qualifying but no wins = x amount of money, etc. etc. Not too difficult. I'd say play it at the team with the better seed's home field until the championship game which would be at a neutral location. I tend to like the 6-team playoff the best because it gives the two teams best in the rankings a week off, to rest, practice, no risk of injury, etc. Meanwhile the rest of the top echelon of teams in the country would battle it out for a spot. Not only would the opening rounds feed money to the schools like typical bowl payouts but it would also inject money into the local economies too. Plus, you start the rounds towards the beginning of bowl season so the championship game winds up being played just after New Years like normal. Remember people, this is during winter break, so I'm doubting seriously that players would be studying for a class they haven't even started. As far as injuries...sure there's a risk of injuries in every game, but injuries happen in bowl games, big name players and huge injuries too (i.e. Willis McGahee...don't see him crying now, blaming his career going down the tubes on having to play in a bowl game with a fat contract). Maybe it will hurt their NFL chances, maybe not. But if you're more worried about an injury than being pumped up to play in another HUGE game on national TV for the pride of your school, then why are you playing college football?

But all that being said...I can see arguments for either side. And I don't see it getting to be changed any time soon either. So enjoy the thrills of the current system while we have it, which would appear to be for some time in to the future.

[SleestakSooner]

I say combine the two, use the BCS to choose the top 16 schools and let those battle it out after the regular season is over. Teams will not mail it in at the end due to the desire for the best seedings.

College basketball is my favorite sport and has always been due to the fact that they let it be decided on the court and not in the papers.

[Stoop Dawg]

and to that I say, "don't lose."

If you want to play for the national title in college football, then don't lose.


Well, don't lose and don't be Auburn or Utah or TCU. Right? :rolleyes:

[Stoop Dawg]

yep...exactly.

some 10-2 or 9-3 team is going to actually feel shafted b/c they didn't get the 8th spot.

There's a huge difference in debating who is #8 and who is #1. I would have thought that would be obvious.

You're statements along the lines of "well, don't lose" make perfect sense in the context of a play off. If there were more undefeated teams than playoff spots then the playoff would be tainted, otherwise, you're making my point for me!

You wanna argue that your 9-3 team should be #8? You lost THREE games, loser!

compared to

You wanna argue that your undefeated team should be #1? You played THE CITADEL, loser!

One of these arguements has more legitimacy than the other.

[MI Sooner]

For those who advocate a 16 team single-elimination football playoff...

Would you be OK with a three loss team winning the national championship over a (previously) unbeaten team that had beaten it twice? I think this would be a bigger travesty than Auburn being left out of the BCS in 2004, but it could happen under this scenario. (Say KSU over OU in 2000).

Would you have rather had a 16 team basketball playoff with best-of-three series to advance in 1988? Did Kansas deserve to be national champions?

I do like the idea of deciding it on the field, but if making sure that no one with a colorable claim on getting into a playoff is left out is so important, why not just let all 118 teams in? Get rid of non-conference games or extend the season. The fact is, unless everything works out like last year (which is rare) there will be teams bitching (probably legitimately) that they should have been the last team in the playoff.

To me, the top priority of a playoff is to ensure that anyone with a half-way reasonable claim of being number one at the end of the regular season gets a chance to play for the championship on the field. Some years, it would be a one team playoff (OU in 2000). Some years it would be three or four. Since it's unrealistic to determine the number of teams that get in on an ad hoc basis, I think you need enough slots to cover the most extreme contingency (I think 6, or maybe 8 would do this). The advantage of 6 is that, in years where there's a clear-cut number one at the end of the regular season, you're only making them play one more game, and it can be at home.

Can anyone find a year in which the 7th ranked team would have a claim on number one?

[Stoop Dawg]

For those who advocate a 16 team single-elimination football playoff...

Would you be OK with a three loss team winning the national championship over a (previously) unbeaten team that had beaten it twice? I think this would be a bigger travesty than Auburn being left out of the BCS in 2004, but it could happen under this scenario. (Say KSU over OU in 2000).

I personally think that 16 is too many. I like 6 or 8.

As you pointed out, the travesty that you mention (replaying games that have already been played) exists already. OU/KSU in the CCG. FSU/UM in the OB, etc.

[Octavian]

Well, don't lose and don't be Auburn or Utah or TCU. Right? :rolleyes:

Or Oklahoma? How 'bout West Virginia in '93? Penn St. in '94?

It's happened to us before....more than once.

If that happens, then hey...you were unlucky that year and have a legit bitch for the rest of your life.

But that's very rare. The vast majority of years there are two undefeateds or one undefeated and a slew of 1-losses....or no undefeateds.

And again, I don't think you have a claim to play for the title if you've lost...if it happens...you're elated and just plain lucky. You go play and maybe you win it all....ala '85.

But you don't fundamentally change the nature of the sport b/c some fanbase's feelers got hurt.

This is all really moot anyway....nothing will change it.

The consumers will keep consuming the product regardless of a playoff or not...what are you gonna do every year around early September?

Not watch?

[Octavian]

There's a huge difference in debating who is #8 and who is #1. I would have thought that would be obvious.

You're statements along the lines of "well, don't lose" make perfect sense in the context of a play off. If there were more undefeated teams than playoff spots then the playoff would be tainted, otherwise, you're making my point for me!

You wanna argue that your 9-3 team should be #8? You lost THREE games, loser!

compared to

You wanna argue that your undefeated team should be #1? You played THE CITADEL, loser!

One of these arguements has more legitimacy than the other.

Come back to me in March when CBS runs interviews w/ 5-10 coaches who feel like they got screwed out of the big dance.

But, but, but...it wasn't to see who was #1...it was just to get in the playoffs....

Yeah, not so much.

Getting in the playoffs means you have a shot to be #1.

In college football RIGHT NOW, if you don't lose you have a shot to be #1.

[Stoop Dawg]

If that happens, then hey...you were unlucky that year and have a legit bitch for the rest of your life.


And again, I don't think you have a claim to play for the title if you've lost...if it happens...you're elated and just plain lucky. You go play and maybe you win it all....ala '85.

That about sums up the problems with the current system. I'd rather have a good team than a lucky one win the NC.

[Stoop Dawg]

Come back to me in March when CBS runs interviews w/ 5-10 coaches who feel like they got screwed out of the big dance.

But, but, but...it wasn't to see who was #1...it was just to get in the playoffs....

Yeah, not so much.


Not so much what? Those 5-10 coaches interviewed on CBS claimed they were title contenders? We're watching different CBS stations I guess.


Getting in the playoffs means you have a shot to be #1.

In college football RIGHT NOW, if you don't lose you have a shot to be #1.

Getting in the playoffs means you have a shot to be #1 by winning games on the field.

In college football RIGHT NOW, if you don't lose you have a shot to be #1 if the pollsters decide so.

Can you say figure skating?

[FaninAma]

Again, any system that eliminates a majority of the teams from competing for a shot at the title before the first football is even teed up is an indefensible system. You can't possibly defend that type of unfair, dishonest, and slanted type of system in determing a champion.

You might as well run it like a pee-wee soccer league where nobody cares who is really the best team on the field of play.

[TrophyCollector]

Again, any system that eiminates a majority of the teams from competing for a shot at the title before the first football is even teed up is an indefensible system. You can't possibly defend that type of unfair, dishonest, and slanted type of system in determing a champion.

You might as well run it like a pee-wee soccer league where nobody cares who is really the best team on the field of play.

Only an undefeated team could have any claim that they didn't get a fair shot, and even then I don't want to hear it because they probably could have played a tougher schedule and improved their BCS score.

Any playoff system will be "unfair" as is the current BCS system. Well, life isn't fair - sorry. If my Red Sox would have been in the National League, they would have had a good enough record to go to the playoffs. But they aren't, so boo hoo. Should we change the MLB playoff system - is it "unfair" and "dishonest" and "slanted"?

Your playoff system, if it includes 6 teams - will be unfair to teams 7 and 8. If 16, it will be to 17 or 18. The ONLY difference will be that you can lose a game or two and still have a shot. The undefeated and best team in the country will have to fight the law of averages 2 or 3 more times and God help them if they get Gordon Reise in the booth.

At the end of it all, you'll have four 12-2 teams and crown one of them the "TRUE AND PROVEN ON THE FIELD CHAMPIONS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL". Forget the fact, that they lost by a TD at Iowa St. in October or at Cal in September. Also forget the fact that the one team that did go undefeated in a quality conference all season long got knocked out in the second round - mostly because their star player went down with a knee injury in round 1.

How in the world is a Notre Dame team that goes 9-2 in the regular season and wins 2 or 3 more in the postseason any more of a "real" champion than 13-0 texass or 13-0 OU?

[GregJackP]

Currently there are 11 conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Conf USA, MAC, Mountain West, Pac-10, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC) and 4 independents (ND, Navy, Army, Temple).

There are 31 bowl games, not including the "BCS Championship" game.

It would be easy to take the 11 conference champs and 5 at-large teams and have them do a playoff. This would take a total of 15 games, which could be the traditional bowl games. This would leave 16 additional bowl games to be played by other (non-playoff) teams.

For example, in 2005 the teams would have been (the conference champs & 5 other teams), seeded per the AP Poll and projected based on seed position:

Round 1:
USC vs. Arkansas State, Outback Bowl
Texas vs. Toledo, Alamo Bowl
Penn State vs. Tulsa, Holiday Bowl
Ohio State vs. Boise State, Sun Bowl
Notre Dame vs. Florida State, Independence Bowl
Oregon vs. TCU, Peach Bowl
Auburn vs. West Virginia, Liberty Bowl
Georgia vs. LSU, Capital One Bowl

Round 2:
USC vs. Georgia, Outback Bowl
Texas vs. Auburn, Gator Bowl
Penn State vs. Oregon, Cotton Bowl
Ohio State vs. Notre Dame, Fiesta Bowl

Round 3:
USC vs. Ohio State, Sugar Bowl
Texas vs. Penn State, Orange Bowl

Championship:
USC vs. Texas, Rose Bowl

It just seems like a fairer system. Regular season could be capped at 10 games, plus a conference championship game. This would mean no more than 16 games total, for the national champion.

[FaninAma]

I disagree that only undefeated teams have a gripe? If one-loss teams from the power conferences can get into the national title game why can't a one-loss team for the Mountain West? I know you're answer: because you're willing to trust the talking heads and pollsters in getting it right about who the best teams really are. Needless to say, I'm not.

And since Boise State and Utah both went undefeated and never had a ****ants chance of playing in the title game you're saying it's OK to repeat that travesty in the future but you understand why they might complain? Wow, you're really an understanding person.;)

Trophy, repeat after me: The BCS sucks, The BCS sucks, The BCS sucks. You know I'm right.

[Egeo]

16 teams? thats way to many!

you're telling me tulsa, toledo and arkansas state deserve a shot at the national championship?

[TrophyCollector]

And since Boise State and Utah both went undefeated and never had a ****ants chance of playing in the title game you're saying it's OK to repeat that travesty in the future but you understand why they might complain?

The only travesty was their non-conference schedules and the cruddy conference competition.

Utah defeated 7-5 A&M, 3-8 Arizona and 3-8 Utah St. in non-con.

Boise defeated 3-9 Idaho and 7-5 Oregon St.

And the WAC and the Moutain West aren't only less talented because Corso says they are, they are less talented because they have less talent and that's why they didn't get in the title game.

If Utah or Boise want to get to the BCS title game, all they need to do is schedule and win something like at USC, at Georgia and vs. Nebraska. That will make up for playing the rest of their games against the likes of Nevada, Rice, SMU, Tulsa, La. Tech, San Jose St., New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego St., etc.

[TrophyCollector]

Round 1:
USC vs. Arkansas State, Outback Bowl
Texas vs. Toledo, Alamo Bowl
Penn State vs. Tulsa, Holiday Bowl
Ohio State vs. Boise State, Sun Bowl
Notre Dame vs. Florida State, Independence Bowl
Oregon vs. TCU, Peach Bowl
Auburn vs. West Virginia, Liberty Bowl
Georgia vs. LSU, Capital One Bowl


Oh, hold the phone, with quality playoff matchups like USC vs. Arkansas St. and UT vs. Toledo, I may be in on this idea :rolleyes:.

So after running the table and winning a quality conference title, USC and texass are rewarded by having to prove that one of them is the real champion by defeating Toledo and Arkansas St.

I think both of them already proved that and I didn't really need Herby and Corso to tell me that USC is better than Arkie St.

And then let's say that maybe Radio pulls a hammy in round 2 vs. Auburn and texass loses the game. The world never gets to see USC vs. UT and Reggie Bush goes out National Champ by rolling up 300 yards on Oregon (who they already beat and THANKS to the BCS was outed for not being good enough to beat a 7-4 team).

So which one is the "real" champion? Was college football better off with the classic Rose Bowl with 2 teams I hate or would it be better if we got to see USC beat Oregon (no doubt only because they have to bring their homer PAC 10 refs to every road playoff game as well) for a 2nd time?

[GregJackP]

I simply took the conference champs from each of the 11 division 1-A conferences.

Toledo, Ark St, etc, even though they are from weak conferences, still were their conferences champ. Can they really compete with USC, texas, OU, etc? Of course not, but when they lose they can't come back and complain that they were undefeated, only had one loss, etc...

I tried to base it the Div 1-AA playoffs. 16 teams. 10 conference champs automatically in the playoffs. 6 at large teams. And they are done before Christmas.

[OU_Sooners75]

The Sooners will have to be one of only 2 one loss teams to be in the title game provided there are no undefeated teams. Even if we finish with no more losses there is no way a rational person can argue that the "loss" in Eugene didn't seriously damage OU's chances for a title.




From what I see and read on the internet, there are a lot of media people that have votes in the AP poll and quite a few coaches that feel OU lost that game because of the Refs, not because Oregon beat OU.

That bolds well with me anyway.

Who thought Washington would be our second strongest non-conference game and be 3-1 right now? I can see OU being in the thick of things if they win out.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't understand people that base the success or failure of a team by whether or not it's in the MNC game every year.

Because, it's the University of Oklahoma and success for the season IS determined by whether or not you get another one plastered on the side of the press box. If OU hadn't demanded that things be that way you'd probably be searching for #2 instead of #8.

[royalfan5]

I'd like to see a playoff just because it might mean that the Florida schools might have to come up and play in Lincoln, or Ann Arbor, etc in December. That'd even out having to go to the Orange Bowl and play Miami for a National title.

[FaninAma]

I'd like to see a playoff just because it might mean that the Florida schools might have to come up and play in Lincoln, or Ann Arbor, etc in December. That'd even out having to go to the Orange Bowl and play Miami for a National title.

That's actually an excellent point I haven't considered.