College Playoff

[Jaxbuck]

My only question to the people against a playoff system: If they are as bad and as degrading to the regular season games as you claim, why are there no calls in any other sport to have them eliminated?

Probably because CFB is the only sport where their is a long historic precedent of not having them(playoffs). CFB is 100+ years old and more popular than ever. If they had a playoff from day 1 and no one knew any better I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue. However, that is not the case. NFL, NBA, and college Bball all have more history with playoffs than without(if they have any history at all without a playoff).

My question to those who believe a playoff has no negative impact on the regular season is how many time have you seen a team with its playoff spot locked up rest its starters or pull them early and essentially concede a game? I know I've seen it a bunch.

The worst part imo, is that most CFB rivalry games are late in the season if not the very last game. That's exactly when a team is going to be looking foreward to playoffs and resting starters. I'm not saying it would always happen or a playoff would completely trivialize the regular season. I'm just saying there is no way to avoid some degree of it.

 

[akronbuck]

should be the playoffs and the only bad thing coming from that would be the last # pick getting a no thxs.

I could live with one of #5,#7,#9,#11,#13,#17 NOT getting it from which ever, playoff system would be the best

It would be a lot better then an auburn,penn state or the florida/scum pick thats been screwed up.


to all you :osu: fans what if we were in scums spot today?
THE PLAYOFF VOTE WOULD BE AT 100%YES

 

[Oh8ch]

My only question to the people against a playoff system: If they are as bad and as degrading to the regular season games as you claim, why are there no calls in any other sport to have them eliminated?

That is an excellent question.

My condescending answer is that majority of the TV audience is not as sophistaced as us purists. But there is also a different answer for different sports.

In sports where you play a ton of games the importance of individual games is already discounted. This is pretty much true in every sport except NFL and College football.

In MLB and NBA unless you are following your favorite team nobody watches games til the playoffs. I watch several CFB games every week.

As for the NFL, for me it has hurt the sport. I don't watch the NFL nearly as much as I used to and part of the reason is regular season games don't mean much. It is also because the Browns have sucked forever and I don't have a second team. But I am certainly in the minority here. The NFL is extremely popular.

I suppose if folks just love to watch NFL games more teams in the playoffs means more excitement.

That would be true of CFB as well. I would readily agree that a post season playoff would attract viewers and generate excitement. But I don't think it does anything for proving who is the best and Wild Card champs prove that IMO.

For my money it doesn't get much more exciting than Louisville versus Rutgers on a Thursday night in mid season. Or OSU versus Texas in week two. And Saturday with USC-UCLA and Florida-Arkansas was classic. (I just lay on the sofa all day and held up one finger for beer and two for nachos. My wife loves nothing better than to satisfy my simple pleasures.) You don't have games like that in the NFL til it is playoff time or if you are a real die hard when two teams are playing for home field advantage in the last week of the season.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

My question to those who believe a playoff has no negative impact on the regular season is how many time have you seen a team with its playoff spot locked up rest its starters or pull them early and essentially concede a game? I know I've seen it a bunch.

I haven't seen a single instance of that in I-AA, II, or III football (which have 16-team playoffs). Everyone wants to win as many games as possible to get the highest possible playoff seeding and homefield advantage. You think Tressel would rest starters for The Game just because he's 11-0 going into it and already has a playoff spot locked up?

 

[martinss01]

I haven't seen a single instance of that in I-AA, II, or III football (which have 16-team playoffs). Everyone wants to win as many games as possible to get the highest possible playoff seeding and homefield advantage. You think Tressel would rest starters for The Game just because he's 11-0 going into it and already has a playoff spot locked up?

against scum? no. but my question to you is this. do you think tressel would do so for a game against say... purdue or illinois should we already have a spot in the playoffs locked up?

 

[buckeyegrad]

My question to those who believe a playoff has no negative impact on the regular season is how many time have you seen a team with its playoff spot locked up rest its starters or pull them early and essentially concede a game? I know I've seen it a bunch.

The worst part imo, is that most CFB rivalry games are late in the season if not the very last game. That's exactly when a team is going to be looking foreward to playoffs and resting starters. I'm not saying it would always happen or a playoff would completely trivialize the regular season. I'm just saying there is no way to avoid some degree of it.

If you still use a BCS-style formula to rank the seat the teams in a playoff, I doubt this happens as long as you keep the number of teams to 12 or less. No one is going to risk losing a game and forfeiting a bye or home field advantage in the first round in order to rest players. As we have seen this year, BCS standings can fluctuate quite a bit at the end of the season.

This is why I like a six-team playoff scenario. The conference champions of the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC get automatic bids. The sixth seat goes to whoever the BCS formula spits out from the other conferences and independents. The top two teams in the playoff get the first week off.

That should prevent any teams from slacking in the last couple of weeks as occurs in the NFL because of the 16 game schedule and 6 teams getting in from each conference.

 

[Saw31]

Playoffs are not going to happen. It seems to me that everyone here gets all hung up on the matchups and brackets, and this search for a "true" champion. The "fan's perspective" in other words. The bowl system is not now, and has never been about finding a "true" champion, though the BCS certainly brings us closer than has been historically possible. What this is about is making money. Until someone can tell me how the money gets shared in a way similar to how it's done now, the idea of a playoff is moot. A playoff system will not spread the money around in a way that will ever be satisfactory to the decision makers involved IMO. We hear "the presidents don't have to say why they don't like a playoff"...Well, this is why. It will always be why. The arguements made for playoffs are all superficial and from a fan's point of view. That's not the way to approach it. The people that matter must look at it as a business decision and you can scream all you want that "the money will still be there", but it's not so much about how much as it is about how it's divided. For example: Do teams getting byes still get paid for that week? That's not going to go over very well. They incur no costs sitting at home while those playing do. Home field? If your chances of gaining home field are so slim, why would you want to trade in guarenteed money at a Bowl game for an elusive (only 2 teams a year) home field game and purse? Or do the home teams have to divide the money with the visitors? Do you give everyone their share as soon as they make it to the playoffs? But once someone is eliminated, they incur no costs. So that won't go over very well either. You're all advocating a 6 team playoff, but there is an opportunity for 10 teams to make the big money now. Why the hell would they want that number to go down to 6? It's not happening. Do you assume the TV money goes up just because you added more games? I don't think you can assume that first round playoff games make the pie bigger than it is now. Advertisers don't have more money to spend just because there's another week of football. So, more games (costs) for the same income? It's not going to happen. The search for a "true" champion is not the priority and never has been. The priority is to ensure (pay for) the future of these huge athletic departments and facilities. That includes those Universities that will never see a BCS game or would never make a playoff appearance. They get a vote too remember. They may not be equals on the field, but they are equals in the decision making process. They will still want their share as well...And with all due respect, D1AA and Div. III has no place in this discussion. Again, making your arguement from a fan's point of view is ignoring what the real hurdles to a playoff are. The D1AA and Div. III playoffs do not generate the kind of money we're talking about here with the Bowl system and it is an apples to oranges comparison...

So, if someone wants to make a "serious" proposal for a playoff system, I'm all ears. But until you address the money issues, each and every idea I've seen suggested on this and every other forum, is a non-starter, thankfully I might add...

No playoffs ever!!

 

[crazybuckfan40]

That is an excellent question.

My condescending answer is that majority of the TV audience is not as sophistaced as us purists. But there is also a different answer for different sports.

In sports where you play a ton of games the importance of individual games is already discounted. This is pretty much true in every sport except NFL and College football.

In MLB and NBA unless you are following your favorite team nobody watches games til the playoffs. I watch several CFB games every week.

As for the NFL, for me it has hurt the sport. I don't watch the NFL nearly as much as I used to and part of the reason is regular season games don't mean much. It is also because the Browns have sucked forever and I don't have a second team. But I am certainly in the minority here. The NFL is extremely popular.

I suppose if folks just love to watch NFL games more teams in the playoffs means more excitement.

That would be true of CFB as well. I would readily agree that a post season playoff would attract viewers and generate excitement. But I don't think it does anything for proving who is the best and Wild Card champs prove that IMO.

For my money it doesn't get much more exciting than Louisville versus Rutgers on a Thursday night in mid season. Or OSU versus Texas in week two. And Saturday with USC-UCLA and Florida-Arkansas was classic. (I just lay on the sofa all day and held up one finger for beer and two for nachos. My wife loves nothing better than to satisfy my simple pleasures.) You don't have games like that in the NFL til it is playoff time or if you are a real die hard when two teams are playing for home field advantage in the last week of the season.

I hear what you are saying here, but I am of the thinking that the game you talk about in your last paragraph, there will be more of them. If one lose isnt going to hurt you why not go for the juggular in the schedule and have it boost your rating even if you lose...

As for the NFL you have a league of 32 teams where 12 get into the playoffs. You can basically weasel away 12 teams due to the fact they arent playoff caliber. So bascially you have 20 teams fighting for 12 spots. That means more than half of them are going to get in. If they were to do a +1 you still have to win all of your games, and all the games are still going to mean something. The only way they wouldnt is if one team was running away with the number 1 ranking and all other teams had 1 or 2 loses.

Even with an 8 team playoff where you take the conference winners, the winnners of the conferences are still going to have to show up week in week out to try and win the conference unless they lock it up a week b4 the end of the season, but they are still going to want to get a good seed in the playoff. Also you are going to have 2 other teams that are going to be trying to vye for the other 2 empty spots, just like you have teams fighting for the at-large spots in the BCS right now...

 

[HailToMichigan]

Playoffs are not going to happen. It seems to me that everyone here gets all hung up on the matchups and brackets, and this search for a "true" champion. The "fan's perspective" in other words. The bowl system is not now, and has never been about finding a "true" champion, though the BCS certainly brings us closer than has been historically possible. What this is about is making money. Until someone can tell me how the money gets shared in a way similar to how it's done now, the idea of a playoff is moot. A playoff system will not spread the money around in a way that will ever be satisfactory to the decision makers involved IMO. We hear "the presidents don't have to say why they don't like a playoff"...Well, this is why. It will always be why. The arguements made for playoffs are all superficial and from a fan's point of view. That's not the way to approach it. The people that matter must look at it as a business decision and you can scream all you want that "the money will still be there", but it's not so much about how much as it is about how it's divided. For example: Do teams getting byes still get paid for that week? That's not going to go over very well. They incur no costs sitting at home while those playing do. Home field? If your chances of gaining home field are so slim, why would you want to trade in guarenteed money at a Bowl game for an elusive (only 2 teams a year) home field game and purse? Or do the home teams have to divide the money with the visitors? Do you give everyone their share as soon as they make it to the playoffs? But once someone is eliminated, they incur no costs. So that won't go over very well either. You're all advocating a 6 team playoff, but there is an opportunity for 10 teams to make the big money now. Why the hell would they want that number to go down to 6? It's not happening. Do you assume the TV money goes up just because you added more games? I don't think you can assume that first round playoff games make the pie bigger than it is now. Advertisers don't have more money to spend just because there's another week of football. So, more games (costs) for the same income? It's not going to happen. The search for a "true" champion is not the priority and never has been. The priority is to ensure (pay for) the future of these huge athletic departments and facilities. That includes those Universities that will never see a BCS game or would never make a playoff appearance. They get a vote too remember. They may not be equals on the field, but they are equals in the decision making process. They will still want their share as well...And with all due respect, D1AA and Div. III has no place in this discussion. Again, making your arguement from a fan's point of view is ignoring what the real hurdles to a playoff are. The D1AA and Div. III playoffs do not generate the kind of money we're talking about here with the Bowl system and it is an apples to oranges comparison...

So, if someone wants to make a "serious" proposal for a playoff system, I'm all ears. But until you address the money issues, each and every idea I've seen suggested on this and every other forum, is a non-starter, thankfully I might add...

No playoffs ever!!

I was gonna say some stuff, but thankfully I read this first, because it pretty much puts everything I was gonna say to shame.

Let me try and add this. We the fans are in great position to bash the presidents and ADs and commissioners about the money chase, because we're getting none of it. However, football money is what funds every single other sport the DI-A colleges have to offer (exception: men's basketball helps a little.) You know that Title IX stuff that people are so big on, all that equality stuff for women's sports? Women's sports are up a creek and gone without football money. Football money pays for every single other sport to have nice facilities, or in many cases, for a program to even exist. At Virginia, my alma mater, the football team built itself a nice artificial-turf practice field. Guess who else uses the practice field: Women's field hockey, for their actual games. The football team built itself a nice building for the players to study, lounge, eat, gather, and watch film. Guess who else uses that building: Every Virginia athlete. Football money helped build Klockner Stadium - a special stadium specifically for the men's and women's soccer and lacrosse teams.

Yes, football sucks up a lot of money too, and at many schools, athletic departments are operating in the red. And it would be fine and dandy to wish for a situation where the pure ideals of sport and competition are the goals. But that's not realistic. When millions and millions and millions of people take an interest in the outcome of a game, you can't keep it small-time. Football, keep in mind, is part and parcel of a university's prestige and appeal. For many schools (I would venture, Ohio State included), it's what they do best. So to ask that the money stay out of the equation is unrealistic.

 

[Saw31]

I was gonna say some stuff, but thankfully I read this first, because it pretty much puts everything I was gonna say to shame.

Let me try and add this. We the fans are in great position to bash the presidents and ADs and commissioners about the money chase, because we're getting none of it. However, football money is what funds every single other sport the DI-A colleges have to offer (exception: men's basketball helps a little.) You know that Title IX stuff that people are so big on, all that equality stuff for women's sports? Women's sports are up a creek and gone without football money. Football money pays for every single other sport to have nice facilities, or in many cases, for a program to even exist. At Virginia, my alma mater, the football team built itself a nice artificial-turf practice field. Guess who else uses the practice field: Women's field hockey, for their actual games. The football team built itself a nice building for the players to study, lounge, eat, gather, and watch film. Guess who else uses that building: Every Virginia athlete. Football money helped build Klockner Stadium - a special stadium specifically for the men's and women's soccer and lacrosse teams.

Yes, football sucks up a lot of money too, and at many schools, athletic departments are operating in the red. And it would be fine and dandy to wish for a situation where the pure ideals of sport and competition are the goals. But that's not realistic. When millions and millions and millions of people take an interest in the outcome of a game, you can't keep it small-time. Football, keep in mind, is part and parcel of a university's prestige and appeal. For many schools (I would venture, Ohio State included), it's what they do best. So to ask that the money stay out of the equation is unrealistic.

Exactly. And the duty of those in charge is not to crown a "true" champion, it is to ensure the good health of the entire athletic department. When you start changing a proven and lucrative process that has allowed for what we have (money), there isn't going to be much support from those who deal in the nuts and bolts of running these programs.

I will give you pro-playoff types a starting point here. If your playoff proposal starts with anything less than 10 teams, shelf it now. That will never happen. The BCS expanded to 10 paydays to head off likely lawsuits from the smaller conferences. Sure, they spun it as "a better way to crown a champion", but that was just the PR. These 4, 6, or 8 team playoffs are completely out of the picture. That number "10" is not going down, period. So, if we must have this same debate over and over again every year, at least start with 10 and go from there.

 

[CookyPuss]

I will give you pro-playoff types a starting point here. If your playoff proposal starts with anything less than 10 teams, shelf it now. That will never happen. The BCS expanded to 10 paydays to head off likely lawsuits from the smaller conferences. Sure, they spun it as "a better way to crown a champion", but that was just the PR. These 4, 6, or 8 team playoffs are completely out of the picture. That number "10" is not going down, period. So, if we must have this same debate over and over again every year, at least start with 10 and go from there.

I had not thought about that number "10" being so key to anything. That is an excellent point. I also agree that if you go to a 10 team playoff that you are really getting onto that slippery slope of teams that don't deserve to be there. With a 10 teams, you are practically giving ND an automatic bid every year. Damn it Saw31, you are appealing to my pragmatic nature. Now I have to weigh the absurdity of the BCS using subjectivity to decide who get to play for the NC against the possibility that the Doomers will get an automatic shot every year. I always hate having to pick between the lesser of two evils.

In principle, I will always favor a playoff. Ideally, it would be either 4 or 6 teams. I've floated the 8 team conference champs + 2 playoff due to the $$ and to give teams from non BCS conferences a chance to get in.

Thanks for all of the discusssion, you have certainly helped me to see both sides of this argument on a deeper level.

 

[osugrad21]

ABJ

Answer may be playoff, not polls

By Terry Pluto

At least we all know Ohio State is absolutely, positively, definitely, without doubt or question the No. 1 team in country.
Right?
Harris Poll voter Jim Walden voted Florida as the No. 1 team in the country.
I don't even want to know why, other than I'd check to see whether he's wearing Gators underwear and socks. He's a former college coach at Iowa State, but that just proves what some fans have thought all along: There are some coaches who know less than the people sitting in the stands.
There were at least five voters who ranked Michigan fourth in the Harris Poll.
Ohio State coach Jim Tressel declined to vote for anyone in the USA Today's coaches poll, knowing that he'd be criticized regardless of whom he ranked No. 2.
Pick Florida? He would not be showing respect for Michigan and the Big Ten.
Pick Michigan? Some fans would scream, ``Coach, are you crazy? Why play them again?''
Pick undefeated Boise State? Then he could move to Sun Valley and run for governor of Idaho. If he had picked those Broncos as No. 2, he would have joined a former Greensboro, N.C., sportswriter named Larry Keech who voted that way.
I worked with Keech in Greensboro in 1978. I was a rookie sportswriter. He was a graceful, patient veteran to me. He's one of the finest men and a wonderful writer. But, Larry, Boise State at No. 2? Are you planning a career in Idaho politics?
Who's No. 2?
Just how did the system lead us to the place where the coach of the No. 1 team has a vote for whom he might play for the national championship game?
Tressel didn't care that some people were upset that he refused to vote. ``Maybe they'll fire me as a pollster,'' he said.
Sounds like he'd welcome the prospect.
Michigan coach Lloyd Carr was angry, calling Tressel's tactic ``real slick.''
Of course, the mere mention of Tressel's name is enough to make Carr feel like someone is trying to stick a crow bar up his nose. For Carr, the only thing worse than being 1-5 against Tressel is not having a chance to go 1-6 in the BCS National Championship Game.
Here's the problem: Ohio State is obviously the grandest team in the land -- except in the mind of Jim Walden.
No one is sure who's No. 2.
Michigan has one loss -- to the Buckeyes.
Florida has one loss -- to Auburn, which is No. 10 in the coaches' poll.
Boise State is 12-0, but its best victory is over No. 25 Oregon State, who beat No. 7 Southern Cal. Maybe we need a playoff for a chance to face Ohio State.
Let USC face Michigan -- oh, that's the Rose Bowl.
Florida can battle Boise.
Then the winners can play off.
And the winner of that game can challenge the Buckeyes.
Stupid?
Of course, but not much worse than what we have now.
How Division III does it
Assuming Mount Union wins another Division III title, perhaps the Buckeyes should face the undefeated Purple Raiders.
OK, this is a silly side trip, but it's that time of year, given the Bowl Championship Series system, in which bowl matchups are the product of a stew made from the Harris Poll, the coaches' poll, a computer ranking along with five turns of the roulette wheel, seven coin flips and three readings of green tea leaves.
Whose idea was this, the Internal Revenue Service's?
Mount Union is fighting to the top of the mountain in the Division III playoff system, which began with 32 teams.
Coach Larry Kehres has won eight national titles in the past 13 seasons at the Alliance school. Some years, he has had to win five playoff games, other years four.
Tressel won four national Division I-AA titles the hard way at Youngstown State.
The obvious answer is to pick the top 16 teams and let them play. Tie the different bowls into this real playoff system.
Sure, there will be some debate about a team locked out of the top 16, but no question the best teams would be in the field.
Why doesn't the NCAA do this?
They say it's because no one wants to take the ``student-athletes'' away from the classroom all those weeks. Exactly how they speak those words without their noses growing and lightning striking them is a miracle.
In case the NCAA forgot its own rules, Division III is the real home of ``student-athletes,'' because there are no athletic scholarships. Their schools have graduation rates in the 90 percent range.
The NCAA likes the outrageously lucrative bowl system in place. It has about as much imagination as a gnat, and it doesn't care if it looks ridiculous.
It just wants the cash. In return, it gets a mess like this.

 

[sandgk]

I need a Playoff and I need it Now!!

Given this picture, it fits perfectly the thread title ..

Apparently Florida's President wants a play-off (or judging by the picture removal of a bad bowel obstruction).
Yahoo

A true champion By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
December 5, 2006
ATLANTA ? A gray-haired 62-year-old with a master's degree in pediatric dentistry and a doctorate in educational psychology normally wouldn't come off as the most powerful person on a football field.
But here was Bernie Machen, president of the University of Florida, moments after his Gators won the SEC championship Saturday at the Georgia Dome, throwing out the most important bit of news of the college football weekend ? he is going to fight for a new championship season.
"We need a playoff," Machen said.
Yeah, not exactly a groundbreaking conclusion ? coaches, players and fans have been screaming the same for decades. But Machen perhaps is the most powerful person ever to make that statement, let alone promise to champion its cause.
It is the university presidents of the six BCS conferences ? ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC ? that are standing in the way of the long-needed elimination of the bowl-based championship system.
It is that system that created another season of discontent and controversy as Florida was selected to play Ohio State in the Bowl Championship Series title game on Jan. 8 in Glendale, Ariz. The one-loss Gators were selected over fellow one-loss contenders Michigan and Louisville as well as unbeaten Boise State. Florida's last-week jump over Michigan in the standings unleashed a torrent of debate as frustrated fans tried to apply logic to an illogical system.
About the only thing agreed on by everyone except the people who make money running bowl games ? and the conference commissioners they seem to have in their pockets ? is that a playoff system is preferred. A nice 16-team playoff ? the same one Division I-AA uses ? would be more exciting, more accessible and more profitable.
But until the university presidents challenge the wisdom of the conference commissioners and stop leaning on absurd and contradictory excuses such as a concern for missed class time, nothing ever will change, no matter the near-annual selection controversy.
The biggest roadblock to common sense always has been the presidents. BCS defenders ? mostly suits who have profited richly ? claim the presidents won't go for a playoff.
Machen swears he is going to change that.
"It's something that's going to take several years to make this kind of change," Machen told a crowd of reporters here Saturday. "But it needs to change.
"In the end, it's about money. There are a lot of people who would be nervous about being at risk for [less] money in a change to a playoff model."
Playoffs need a proponent, and it can't come from the coaching ranks or the media. It can't be a simple fan or even a television executive waving billions in broadcast rights. This thing has to be changed from within, and that means president to president, Ph.D. to Ph.D.
Machen isn't the first university president to promise to fight for a new system. But he is the first at a school with the power and cache of Florida. This isn't the president of Tulane, which has a weak football program. This isn't a commissioner from the Mountain West, a league with its nose pressed against the window.
Florida has not only one of the most successful athletic departments in America but also a sterling academic reputation. It is an anchor in the big-time SEC. When Machen talks, he'll do so with credibility at that level of the academia. He told The Gainesville Sun he already has discussed playoff ideas with Florida State president T.K. Wetherell, who has also recently pledged support.
And he keeps promising to talk to many others, even after his Gators navigated the BCS water to get into the title game. That, he swears, isn't the point. The problem remains.
He has vowed to take the issue up with his fellow SEC presidents at their annual spring meeting. Machen holds more cards than perhaps even he knows. He thinks this will take a long time, and perhaps it will because there still is a lot of status-quo money that will push back.
But if Machen can convince his fellow SEC presidents, if he can present viable revenue options, if he can convince them to send the championship system back under central NCAA control (and out of the hands of conference commissioners), if he can get the SEC to say it will opt out of the BCS when the current television contracts expire after the 2009 season, then the system immediately will crumble.
It's that simple. College football can't have a viable championship system without the SEC.
Yes, it's a lot of "ifs," but not if this guy is for real, not if Dr. James Bernard Machen really is ready to become the most powerful force in college athletics. Then the revolution finally would have its leader.
"This BCS system has to change," he said.
This BCS is a house of cards. It's just waiting for someone to blow it down. With any luck, college football has, at last, found its hero.

 

[Oh8ch]

bad bowel obstruction

Bad bowel or bad bowl? Or is it Michigan that is complaining about the bowl obstruction?

(No good at merging myself, but I think there is a thread on this topic already someplace.)

 

[methomps]

This fear that teams are going to rest starters and ruin the regular season is just not inevitable in a playoff system. A small field (6 teams) with appropriate rewards for finishing at the top (byes, homefield advantage) will solve all of that (or at least solve it as much as the BCS does- see Oklahoma 2003 Big12 CCG).

You see teams rest starters in other sports because the season is so much longer that one game doesn't matter as much. Playoff opponents like to say that the absence of a playoff is the reason that college football has the greatest regular season in sports.

The reason college football has the greatest regular season in sports isn't because of the BCS or the bowls. It is because the season is so short that there is no room to take games off.

If you had an 8 team playoff using the top 8 teams from today's coaches poll your field would include 3 teams with 2 losses. Any of those teams is capable of beating undefeated OSU if the breaks go right, or the weather is bad, or somebody gets hurt. They could pull an upset. But they have not earned the right to have that upset mean anything more than UCLA's upset of USC.

Has Florida really earned the right, though? People talk about "earning the right," but it seems to me that their estimation is so couched in the system in place that it is meaningless. It's not really an independent analysis of Florida's season to determine whether they have earned anything. It's simply saying they earned it because they jumped through the hoops specified for this year (be in the top 2).