College Playoff

[Oh8ch]

Oh, and incidentally, with the exception of the Buckeyes and the Tourney, I don't watch a single minute of college basketball. Including Duke UNC. Why? I used to watch... so why did I stop? Simple. Those games don't matter in the least. There's little to keep my interest (as a casual fan of basketball).

+1

If you are in the boat that a team like Nova was a paper champion then you are making an argument for teams that lose one game. Say OSU only lost to Purdue, they would still have NO chance at the title in the current system or if they played them in the playoff. Who cares if that game was in October or in December/January. I do, because that Nova team won the right to play for the title by beating better teams deemed worthy.

Gerogetown beat Nova TWICE during the regular season. Nova won the NC only by having an unconscious shooting night. It was an incredible effort. But it underscores the central flaw in the playoff argument if you want to claim that it is the best way of identifying the "best" team for a given year. It presumes that playoff games are "magic" games that prove things regular season games don't. All any game does is prove who was better that night - if it even proves that. But a playoff that gives a three loss team a chance to beat an undefeated team - perhaps one of the three teams that hung one of those three losses on them - is no improvement over what we have now.

There are other arguments for a playoff, but "proving" something "on the field" is weak.

 

[RhodeIslandBuck]

I'll have to evaluate your system more closely, and over a course of year to understand it's effect... but I take issue with this statement:

and we would have a true National Champion because of the eight team playoff.

Please identify the BCS National Champion which you think is an improper Champion. When you are able to do that, I won't think you're using hyperbole when you say things like that.

2000 - What a mess, four teams (Florida State, Miami FL, Oregon State, Washington) could have layed a claim to take on the undefeated Sooners, only a playoff would have resolved the issue and given us a true national champion.
2004 - Auburn went undefeated, USC and Oklahoma did too, Auburn was screwed, any type of scenario that does not give an undefeated team from a power conference a chance to win it all, is considered by me to be a system that does not give us a true national champion.
2007 - Only a playoff would have settled this mess, too many teams with claims to get in the title game. LSU may have been the best team over the course of the year, but it would be hard to convince me that Georgia wouldn't have won a tournament style national championship.
2008 - No one can make me believe USC was not the best team in the nation in 08, Florida was excellent as I believe they deserved to play in the title game, but too many teams (such as Utah, USC, and Texas) look deserving of a chance to play for a National Championship.

 

[BRICKtamland]

Top 8 teams in the BCS go to a playoff. 1st and 2nd round home games. Title game pre-determined neutral site. The Bowl games can still invite any team that doesn't make the playoffs.

 

[OH10]

They apply because you said "since I was a child and I had to ask why every other sport, professional and amateur, had an inclusionary playoff system that worked." and I gave examples which established your premise as false.

In the across-the-board sense of "sport," then yes, you are correct. In either sense, it doesn't make any point you are trying to prove. Even though fringe, non-team sports such as boxing, figure skating, gymnastics, auto racing, track, cyclying, etc, do not have playoff/tournament formats, they are still far more inclusive than the BCS.

Again, I am not arguing playoffs are a bad way of doing things necessarily. I am saying they do not solve any problem of the BCS - and they certainly do NOT make a champion more "legitimate" in any sense.

Based on what? If you define "legitimacy" as "popular acceptance," then I would say your are wrong. My evidence? The length of this thread and the scores of arguments across the country about the fallacy of the BCS as compared to the relative lack of controversy over playoff/tournament champions.

I'll do that just as soon as you point out to me the one team which the BCS has crowned champion who didn't "deserve" it. Show me the way this current system is broken. I'd prefer we not argue about teams which might have also had arguments for inclusion. That's really an argument about bubble teams, and it doesn't matter where we draw the line, someone's left out and they will bitch about it. So... the question, to be clear - Where is the illigitimate BCS Champion? Name that team. Why should they have not been crowned?

Who is illegitimate under the current system? Everyone. And that doesn't mean they wouldn't have won under an improved system, but we call it the mythical national championship for a reason. Wikipedia even has a nice summary of each year in which the legitimacy of the MNC has been placed in question: Mythical national championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The two years not included? 2002 and 2005. Not a strong success rate.

There's always a healthy medium of where to draw the line. For example, it would be extreme (in my opinion) to expand the NCAA tournament to every team. On the other hand, I consider it equally extreme to limit the potential champion to two teams picked by the media and computers based on variable schedules OR a system doesn't account for growth/improvement during the season.

Where that healthy medium should be drawn depends. Every Joe Schmo across the country thinks he has the "plan." On the specifics, I really don't care. As long as it stays away from the extremes, then we are arguing about relatively minor things. The BCS fits into one of the extremes.

As for your question, though, I'm not a Pats fan - but I can tell you this... the Pats were a far superior team to the Giants. They lost only 1 game. If they lost that one game in October, they're champions. They lost it in February. Arbitrary. The better team doesn't always win. So, the point is this - don't kid yourself in to thinking playoffs aren't without contraversy, or that they settle anything.

Playoffs come with decidely less controversy. Again, look no further than the length of this thread. I would be willing to bet you could take the whole of the entire internet, combine all threads arguing for the abolition of the playoff/tournament systems in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and college basketball; and it would still be shorter than this thread.

You need to establish a goal and address how a playoff meets that objective.

The goal is to include as many deserving teams into the equation as possible; and bring them together for a money-making venture to determine a more legitimate system of having a champion decided on the field. (even if its not perfect... since that doesn't exist).

So I would say the goal is inclusion and progress, not perfection.

I don't watch a single minute of college basketball. Including Duke UNC. Why? I used to watch... so why did I stop? Simple. Those games don't matter in the least. There's little to keep my interest (as a casual fan of basketball).

And as a serious fan of football, I still didn't watch very much outside of Ohio State this year. Why? Because the polls and the computers had already pretty much decided that it would be Texas vs. SEC Champion. And outside the conference championship games, neither of those teams played an interesting game all year long.

 

[Oh8ch]

My Playoff System:

I think I figured out a way to implement a playoff without straying too far from the traditional way we've been crowning a National Champion.

Play the regular season as is, including conference championship games, conferences can determine their champion however they want. Since the final regular season games of this season were played on Saturday December 5, the first round of the playoffs would be played on December 12, between eight teams: The Champs of the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC, the highest ranked champion of a Non-BCS conference, and the highest ranked team that does not meet any of the previous qualifications (Wild Card team). For example, the team's this year would be:

ACC: 9. Georgia Tech
Big 12: 2. Texas
Big East: 3. Cincinnati
Big Ten: 8. Ohio State
Pac-10: 7. Oregon
SEC: 1. Alabama
Non-BCS: 4. TCU
Wild Card: 5. Florida

Note: If any of the seven automatic qualifiers are ranked lower than 12th in the BCS Rankings, they would lose their automatic bid to another Wild Card team, however, all seven automatic qualifiers are ranked high enough, so no problems there.

So the first round games (played at the higher seeds home stadium) would be:
1. Alabama vs. 8. Georgia Tech
2. Texas vs. 7. Ohio State
3. Cincinnati vs. 6. Oregon
4. TCU vs. 5. Florida

Assuming all playoff games are won by the higher seed, the following Saturday (December 19) would be the date for the Semi-finals (Higher seed still gets home-field advantage):
1. Alabama vs. 4. TCU
2. Texas vs. 3. Cincinnati

Since the National Championship Matchup would already be decided at that point (Only one bowl game would have been played at that point), then all other bowl games could carry on as usual and the 6 playoff teams that did not reach the national championship could be pegged for the 4 Other BCS Bowls (along with two other teams).

So, by doing this all bowl games would still remain intact, and we would have a true National Champion because of the eight team playoff.

For example (assuming the higher seeds win the semi-final games) the BCS bowl lineup would be exactly the same as it is right now even with the playoff, and because the playoff ends on December 19 (or the 12th for some), it allows fans and family to arrange travel plans for their playoff teams' BCS Bowl Game.

It's basically adding one week to the regular season for 4 teams, and two weeks for another four, and I believe this could easily be implemented.

You got lucky this year (other than leaving an undefeated Boise St out of your system). Here is the poll from 2008 as of the end of the regular season. Who are your eight?

Florida 12-1
Oklahoma 12-1
Texas 11-1
Alabama 12-1 (sorry Tide, we already have a wild card)
USC 11-1
PSU 11-1
Utah 11-1
Texas Tech 11-1
Boise 12-0
OSU 10-2 (hey, we get to stay home and watch GaTech play)
TCU 10-2
Cincy 11-2
Ok St 9-3
Georgia Tech 9-3

And in 2006 the top five teams in the country were OSU, Florida, UM, LSU, and Wisky - two of whom would miss the playoff.

 

[NateG]

There are other arguments for a playoff, but "proving" something "on the field" is weak.

This return argument for a BCS system is equally weak. Just cancel all on the field requirements and create a non on the field way to determine who is better. So the fact that 1 or 2 times in the History of Sport in a championship game is reason to throw out playoff as a means of determining who is the best for that year. The funny thing is I don't really know which I'd rather have. But I think saying that what happens on the field doesn't matter is garbage. You can study your tail off for a test and walk in and fail, the teacher doesn't say well because you studied extremely hard you get the best score for the year.

 

[NateG]

So let's determine a champion by intangible reasons instead of tangible ones. How can you say that Nova wasn't a better team. They lost games that didn't necessarily matter to the cause. But when it mattered, they showed up and showed up BIG. So all the prep that the regular season gave them made them a better team in the end. Just like how Florida blew the doors off of OSU.

 

[JBaney45]

Top 8 teams in the BCS go to a playoff. 1st and 2nd round home games. Title game pre-determined neutral site. The Bowl games can still invite any team that doesn't make the playoffs.

^^^

This

The "devaluation of the regular season" arguement is rather crap

What's a more devalued Regular season then Cincy's, Boise's or TCU's, undefeated and left out by name only?

With only 12/13 regular season games every game is still going to mean a lot, Using College basketball isn't a good reference, they play 30 some games, 64 out of 347 get in, 18% of teams.

Comparing it to the NFL doesn't work either, they have a small number of games, but having 12 of 32 teams (37.5%) qualify hurts them when it comes to the quality of their regular season

NBA has the long number of games and you've got 16 of 30 teams (53%) in playoffs

MLB has a smaller playoff, 8 teams out of 30 (26%) but obviously the large number of regular season games hurts

College Football with an 8 team playoff, 8 teams out of 120 is a lowly 6.667%, and with the fewest number of regular season games on top of that, you still have the most exciting regular season there is, I mean the games are so regionalized and you still have to perform to well to get into that top 8.

I would rather risk rewarding a team that is playing well at the end of the season (when your supposed to be playing your best) then continue to punish those who perform and get shafted by our system.

 

[jlb1705]

Good point about the conference champion playoff format altering the landscape of college football. I didn't think of that, and I'm not sure that most people are ready for that.

I've got an idea for a playoff: More than two teams!

That's progress and we can work from there. Until then, I will always see the way that college football crowns its "champion" as a joke. I've thought that since I was a child and I had to ask why every other sport, professional and amateur, had an inclusionary playoff system that worked. And no one has given me anything close to a rationale answer since.



I have NEVER heard one person make that statement with any sincere vigor or hatred towards that 'Nova title. The same is true with '97 Arizona or '05 Florida. They are all regarded as the champions of the sport for those years.

I have also NEVER hear anyone argue that college basketball should some how trim its system down to two teams selected by gigabytes and journalists with agendas. If that were how we did things, Ohio State would already be eliminated (IN DECEMBER) because of Evan Turner's injury.

Pretty much all of these other sports have a playoff where you get in based on having the best record in your division and or conference. The only major sport where that's not the case is in college basketball. And no, while nobody has said anything "hateful" about Villanova's victory, anytime I've seen it discussed or written about in any kind of depth it has come with the acknowledgment that Georgetown was the better team all year (and had in fact beaten Villanova every other time that season), but scrappy Villanova pulled it out that night. To me, that's not a "true" championship. A championship shouldn't be able to be explained away as simply as, "Shit happens."

Oh, and people point to the college basketball tournaments as something that represents all that is pure and holy in the name of competition. The field for that tournament is selected by a committee of ADs and conference types that often have a vested interest in who gets in and who is left out. How is that any less insane that journalists and computers making the selection?

 

[BrutusBobcat]

Look, a playoff is bad, okay? It creates winners, which means losers, and who gets hurt? The fans self-esteem, that's who. With a playoff, would the poor, backwards, shirtless, inbred, illiterate hicks in Alabama who can't even spell SAT, never mind get into the university be able to claim that they've won a national championship one out of every three years (two out of three when St. Bryant was coaching)? NO. They would not. What would happen then? The SEC streak of 58 consecutive national championships would be broken.

What of poor Michigan? Their measly half championship would be null and void (null and Lloyd?), and they would have exact zero championships since the advent of the forward pass and the Robust T. As much as that state has suffered (*giggle*) in the past 50 years, a playoff would have deprived them of the only claim to national success the winged helmets have had since facemasks were added.

No, my friends. The BCS is bad enough, since it diminishes the mythical nature of football titles. What would we do without those awarded by the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame? The sportswriters of the Associated Press have it bad enough, what with newspapers folding left and right, and I'm not talking about when dad gets up from the La-Z-Boy. No sirrie! Why do they call it a mythical national championship, anyway? Not because it's imaginary, but because it takes mythical feats of football prowess to win one! Would you call a playoff winner a "mythical" national champion? No, you would not! They would be a plain old ordinary national champion, just like ever other mortal and pedestrian sport. They'd be flawed, have losses and likely be the beneficiary of lucky bounces and questionable calls by the officials. It truly is bad enough that we have this BCS Championship nonsense.

Not all sports have a playoff, by the way. Many used judging, derisively referred to by playoff advocates as "beauty contests". Well, other than REAL beauty contests, figure skating, gymnastics, synchronized swimming and even that manliest of sports, men's platform diving all use subjective judging to crown champions, and they're also amateur sports!

The correct way forward is clearly backwards, like a lateral screen. We need to return to split championships and arbitrary voting by multiple organizations after the bowl game exhibition season has ended. College football does not deserve to suffer the winner-take-all tyranny of a single champion or be subjected to the whim of mere single game circumstances. The entire body of a team's work must be reviewed and evaluated by the wisest and most diligent football minds in America so that multiple deserving teams can be awarded their own national title.

Either that, or we can let Corso pick out a random mascot head on Gameday.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

2000 - What a mess, four teams (Florida State, Miami FL, Oregon State, Washington) could have layed a claim to take on the undefeated Sooners, only a playoff would have resolved the issue and given us a true national champion.
2004 - Auburn went undefeated, USC and Oklahoma did too, Auburn was screwed, any type of scenario that does not give an undefeated team from a power conference a chance to win it all, is considered by me to be a system that does not give us a true national champion.
2007 - Only a playoff would have settled this mess, too many teams with claims to get in the title game. LSU may have been the best team over the course of the year, but it would be hard to convince me that Georgia wouldn't have won a tournament style national championship.
2008 - No one can make me believe USC was not the best team in the nation in 08, Florida was excellent as I believe they deserved to play in the title game, but too many teams (such as Utah, USC, and Texas) look deserving of a chance to play for a National Championship.

This is not an answer to my question. I'm not worried about other teams that might have also been given a shot. I want you to tell me which actual BCS champion you think is illigitimate

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

In the across-the-board sense of "sport," then yes, you are correct. In either sense, it doesn't make any point you are trying to prove. Even though fringe, non-team sports such as boxing, figure skating, gymnastics, auto racing, track, cyclying, etc, do not have playoff/tournament formats, they are still far more inclusive than the BCS.

We don't really need to go down this road, as the point I was trying to make was simply that your original statement was erroneous, but your conclusion strikes me as tail wagging the dog. I'm not sure how in the hell you arrive at the conclusion that auto racing is more inclusive than CFB. It's as if you don't believe any games prior to the BCS Championship game have any relevance at all.

Based on what? If you define "legitimacy" as "popular acceptance," then I would say your are wrong. My evidence? The length of this thread and the scores of arguments across the country about the fallacy of the BCS as compared to the relative lack of controversy over playoff/tournament champions.

I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence like thread length. It's a simple exercise. Since 1998, when the BCS was first implemented, which BCS Champion has been crowned which you think should not have been crowned? I can point to specific champions in playoff scenarios who I think I can make a reasoned argument should NOT be the champion (Nova, NYG being examples) because some other team was superior. All I'm doing is asking the same of you. Which BCS Champion didn't deserve that title? Again - as I said to RhodeIslandBuck.. don't run down who else might stake a claim.. I know about all of that already. I want to know which specific team since 1998 has won a BCS title, but should not have.

Who is illegitimate under the current system? Everyone. And that doesn't mean they wouldn't have won under an improved system, but we call it the mythical national championship for a reason. Wikipedia even has a nice summary of each year in which the legitimacy of the MNC has been placed in question: Mythical national championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The two years not included? 2002 and 2005. Not a strong success rate.

Calling everyone illigitimate is the sort of conclusory remark I'm not really interested in. I'm looking for proof of the remark. I know you feel that way. I'm asking for evidence. You say "improved system" as if it's self evident that playoffs are an improvement. I've demonstrated why I do not believe that to be true. I'm asking you to demonstrate where I'm wrong. If all you've got is conclusions and opinion without the requisite support, that's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

Playoffs come with decidely less controversy. Again, look no further than the length of this thread. I would be willing to bet you could take the whole of the entire internet, combine all threads arguing for the abolition of the playoff/tournament systems in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and college basketball; and it would still be shorter than this thread.

I'm not going to look at thread length to determine whether controversy exists. I'd like it if someone from your side would outline what controversy you're talking about, and systematically demonstrate how that controversy disappears with a playoff. I've tried to anticipate these arguments in the past - ie controversy about bubble teams - and thus far no one from your side has "solved" any BCS problem with playoffs.

The goal is to include as many deserving teams into the equation as possible; and bring them together for a money-making venture to determine a more legitimate system of having a champion decided on the field. (even if its not perfect... since that doesn't exist).

You identify not just a goal that's probably impossible to obtain, you don't even have defined parameters. "To include as many deserving teams...." Are you serious? In 2002 there were 2 deserving teams. In 2009, there might be 5 (and I'm ignoring bogus undefeateds like Boise and TCU... If Ohio State had played their schedules and gone 12-0 I would have expected it. I'm not impressed with TCU or Boise being able to do it.) As a result, I still don't know what you're goal is much less how to implement some program designed to achive it.

I was thinking you would identify what it is about the BCS that makes you think it needs to change. So far, all I'm getting is "There should be more teams given a chance to win" That's fine, if that's all it is. But, spare me the bullshit remarks about it being a better system. It's a different system, but as for demonstrating how it's "better" I'm not sold yet.

So I would say the goal is inclusion and progress, not perfection.

Why include anyone else? Again, what about TCU or Boise State is so impressive? They beat a schedule any of the "big boys" would crush. I'm supposed to be impressed by this? Once again, the TCU's of the world get to take on suspect competition and qualify while the "big boys" have to beat "big boys" to get there.... that's not a lack of perfection.. that's precisely contrary to the whole concept of "fair" as it modifies "inclusion"

And as a serious fan of football, I still didn't watch very much outside of Ohio State this year. Why? Because the polls and the computers had already pretty much decided that it would be Texas vs. SEC Champion. And outside the conference championship games, neither of those teams played an interesting game all year long.

OK.. I'll assume that as true for our purposes here. Would you have watched Texas Wyoming if a playoff bid was hanging in the balance 3 months out instead of a BCS bid? I think your honest answer has to be "no" but I'm willing to listen to your theory on how having a playoff would make these uninteresting games more interesting. Hell, I'd even suggest to you - if there was a playoff, we'd have already known (depending on the bracket size) that the results of Pitt - Cinci, Texas - Nebby, and Florida - Bama were meaningless.

 

[sepia5]

This is not an answer to my question. I'm not worried about other teams that might have also been given a shot. I want you to tell me which actual BCS champion you think is illigitimate

How should he define "legitimate?"

 

[RhodeIslandBuck]

You got lucky this year (other than leaving an undefeated Boise St out of your system). Here is the poll from 2008 as of the end of the regular season. Who are your eight?

Florida 12-1
Oklahoma 12-1
Texas 11-1
Alabama 12-1 (sorry Tide, we already have a wild card)
USC 11-1
PSU 11-1
Utah 11-1
Texas Tech 11-1
Boise 12-0
OSU 10-2 (hey, we get to stay home and watch GaTech play)
TCU 10-2
Cincy 11-2
Ok St 9-3
Georgia Tech 9-3

And in 2006 the top five teams in the country were OSU, Florida, UM, LSU, and Wisky - two of whom would miss the playoff.

In an eight team playoff, unless you're a conference champion, if you have three losses, you have NO claim to a chance to win the whole thing so Ok St. and GaTech are out. Cincy would make it because of the Big East Championship, but just barely (theywere ranked 12th in the BCS). TCU had two losses and play in a Non-BCS conferece, no argument. Ohio State was a good team, but they got demolished by a solid USC team and had their chance to get in the playoffs against Penn State at home, but blew it, they had no argument either. Unfortunately Boise would get screwed, but if another Non-BCS team has a better resume, they don't have the right to complain. Texas Tech crumbled at the end of the year. They were clearly the third best team in the Big 12 South triumverate. Utah would have made it as the Non-BCS team. Alabama would have made it because the ACC Champion (VaTech) was ranked lower than 12th in the BCS Rankings, giving their spot to a second Wild Card team, which would have been Alabama. Texas would have made it as the first Wold Card, Oklahoma as the Big 12 champ, and Florida as the SEC Champ.

So the first round would look like this:
1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Albama
5. USC
6. Utah
7. Penn State
8. Cincinnati

In 2006, only Wisconsin would miss the playoff because Wake Forest was ranked lower than 12th in the BCS Rankings, giving LSU a second Wild Card. And either way, a team that finished third in it's conference doesn't have much of an argument for making the playoff.

2006:
1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. FLorida
4. LSU
5. USC
6. Louisville
7. Boise State
8. Oklahoma

 

[sepia5]

We don't really need to go down this road, as the point I was trying to make was simply that your original statement was erroneous, but your conclusion strikes me as tail wagging the dog. I'm not sure how in the hell you arrive at the conclusion that auto racing is more inclusive than CFB. It's as if you don't believe any games prior to the BCS Championship game have any relevance at all.

Auto racing is more inclusive because, during each race, every competitor is competing against every other competitor simultaneously. Not something that can really be replicated in college football, but the nature of the sport clearly allows it to be more inclusive than the college football system.

I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence like thread length. It's a simple exercise. Since 1998, when the BCS was first implemented, which BCS Champion has been crowned which you think should not have been crowned? I can point to specific champions in playoff scenarios who I think I can make a reasoned argument should NOT be the champion (Nova, NYG being examples) because some other team was superior. All I'm doing is asking the same of you. Which BCS Champion didn't deserve that title? Again - as I said to RhodeIslandBuck.. don't run down who else might stake a claim.. I know about all of that already. I want to know which specific team since 1998 has won a BCS title, but should not have.

Again, this debate entirely centers on how you define legitimacy. It's pretty easy, really. I think a majority of viewers, commentators, fans and I suspect participants view the system we have in place as illegitimate when an Auburn '04 situation pops up, or even when a scenario like this season plays out. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Gtown was better than Nova and that the Pats were better than the Giants, but very few people see the Nova and Giants' championships as illegitimate. Why? Because people watched the teams play throughout a playoff, win, meet one another in the final, and the underdogs won. They're champions. Frankly, I bet a majority of people you ask would say that Miami '02 was the best team in college football that season. But tOSU won. Do you think that means the BCS didn't "work" that season?

Calling everyone illigitimate is the sort of conclusory remark I'm not really interested in. I'm looking for proof of the remark. I know you feel that way. I'm asking for evidence. You say "improved system" as if it's self evident that playoffs are an improvement. I've demonstrated why I do not believe that to be true. I'm asking you to demonstrate where I'm wrong. If all you've got is conclusions and opinion without the requisite support, that's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

If legitimacy is defined by perception, there is no solid, concrete evidence one can offer beyond opinion polls. But if you want examples of seasons in which our system has been less than satisfying, I think they've been listed ad nauseum in this thread and others. I mean, we're really dealing in opinions here, whether we want to admit it or not.

I'm not going to look at thread length to determine whether controversy exists. I'd like it if someone from your side would outline what controversy you're talking about, and systematically demonstrate how that controversy disappears with a playoff. I've tried to anticipate these arguments in the past - ie controversy about bubble teams - and thus far no one from your side has "solved" any BCS problem with playoffs.

For my part, I think I've tried to answer this question over and over again. Team #3 in the current system has a claim to the right to compete for a championship more often than not. The further you go out, the more inclusive you get, the less valid that claim is. Team #9's claim in an 8-team playoff system simply is not as compelling as that of Auburn '04 or Cincy '09.

You identify not just a goal that's probably impossible to obtain, you don't even have defined parameters. "To include as many deserving teams...." Are you serious? In 2002 there were 2 deserving teams. In 2009, there might be 5 (and I'm ignoring bogus undefeateds like Boise and TCU... If Ohio State had played their schedules and gone 12-0 I would have expected it. I'm not impressed with TCU or Boise being able to do it.) As a result, I still don't know what you're goal is much less how to implement some program designed to achive it.

Your question here is really all about arbitrariness. How does one determine a "deserving" team. Again, arbitrariness will never be eliminated by any system. I think most of us simply find it less arbitrary to be slightly overinclusive than underinclusive. This is because in the overinclusive system the teams that are certainly deserving of a shot at the title (BCS #1 and #2) will still have a chance to win a championship, whereas in the underinclusive system currently in use, there will generally be teams that can make the argument, often in very compelling fashion, that they should receive a shot, but will nevertheless be left out.

I was thinking you would identify what it is about the BCS that makes you think it needs to change. So far, all I'm getting is "There should be more teams given a chance to win" That's fine, if that's all it is. But, spare me the bull[censored] remarks about it being a better system. It's a different system, but as for demonstrating how it's "better" I'm not sold yet.

How about this: An undefeated BCS conference team should never be denied the opportunity to win a championship by beating those teams ranked ahead of them at the end of the regular season. That happens in the current system. That would not happen with an 8-team playoff.

Why include anyone else? Again, what about TCU or Boise State is so impressive? They beat a schedule any of the "big boys" would crush. I'm supposed to be impressed by this? Once again, the TCU's of the world get to take on suspect competition and qualify while the "big boys" have to beat "big boys" to get there.... that's not a lack of perfection.. that's precisely contrary to the whole concept of "fair" as it modifies "inclusion"

Again, I'd be in favor of additional changes that require tougher scheduling and perhaps realignment. Otherwise, I agree with you on this, though I do, to a certain extent, sympathize with the plight of mid-majors.

OK.. I'll assume that as true for our purposes here. Would you have watched Texas Wyoming if a playoff bid was hanging in the balance 3 months out instead of a BCS bid? I think your honest answer has to be "no" but I'm willing to listen to your theory on how having a playoff would make these uninteresting games more interesting. Hell, I'd even suggest to you - if there was a playoff, we'd have already known (depending on the bracket size) that the results of Pitt - Cinci, Texas - Nebby, and Florida - Bama were meaningless.

No one is going to watch Texas/Wyoming anyway, except Texas fans, Wyoming fans, and guys like me, who watched part of that game on a stream because it was unexpectedly close early on. If we had a playoff, I still would have watched that stream because (1) I'm a college football junkie, (2) a huge upset is a huge upset and fun to watch no matter what, and (3) Texas losing to Wyoming could still have very real ramifications regarding who gets in to a playoff, given that we play a 12 or 13 game regular season in college football, not a 30-60 game regular season.

Hell, I'd even suggest to you - if there was a playoff, we'd have already known (depending on the bracket size) that the results of Pitt - Cinci, Texas - Nebby, and Florida - Bama were meaningless.

I don't see how you get here. Pitt and Cinci would have certainly been playing for a spot in the playoffs. Nebraska would have been playing for a spot and had they pulled it off, there would have been a question about whether Texas would get in. Florida and Bama may have both still gotten in, but it still would have been entertaining football and there would have at least been SOME question as to whether the loser would have gotten in. If we had an 8-team playoff, and BCS conference champions get an auto bid, here was the situation going into week 14:

BCS Rankings:

1. Florida
2. Alabama
3. Texas
4. TCU
5. Cincy
6. Boise State
7. Oregon
8. tOSU
9. Iowa
10. Georgia Tech

Conference champions were in. That's 6 teams. Two spots remain. Those realistically vying for those spots included: the loser of the SEC championship game; TCU; Boise State. Point being, the SEC championship game wasn't irrelevant at all. A close game means that the loser may still get in.