Lets see what a Playoff could actually look like

[23Skidoo]

However, any number under eleven would almost certainly be set up without using conference autobids. If you autobid some conferences and not others, there will be lawsuits and probably a genuine antitrust case. So that would basically mean either a ranking system like the BCS (a bogus idea; if it can't pick two then it can't pick eight) or a competition committee - and that means, practically every year, there will be multiple teams from at least one conference.

The only way your complaint can be satisfied is an 11-team playoff, which would bring Troy into the picture and eliminate Texas, among others. Nobody would consider that even remotely equitable or entertaining.

And there, in a nutshell, you have my problem with all the "playoffs will fix everything" people. It doesn't. 16 teams is a farce. "Wildcards" do win championships... which is bs.
I may get slaughtered for this, but we did not deserve to be in a playoff this year. We had already lost to 2 of the schools that would be in a playoff... and to one of them at home. But in a 16-team playoff, those games wouldn't have mattered.

If it was a perfect world, we'd make DIA an even 120 teams... divided into 12 conferences of 10 schools each. Then they all play round robins within their conference (just like P10) plus a couple ooc games.
Finally the 12 conference champions face eachother in a playoff.
1st round 4 games between 8 "worst" schools... which would go to a straight 8-team QF.

BCS needs a lot of work... but I'm not sold on playoffs. And I like what methomps has to say about the post-season system changing to fit the scenario... that would be also be ideal to me. But I'm not sure that'd ever fly.


edit: I'd also like to point out I have no sympathy for Texas (or USC for that matter.) They had their chance, they blew it. It's not everybody else's fault that Texas is in one of those silly 12-team conferences with retarded CCGs either. That's their own damn fault. They didn't just agree to the rules, they helped create them.
Utah is a different story however.

 

[HailToMichigan]

And there, in a nutshell, you have my problem with all the "playoffs will fix everything" people. It doesn't. 16 teams is a farce.

Agreed 100%, of course. I don't believe for a minute that a playoff "legitimizes" the national champion....that's a fallacy. You're right...in a perfect world (at least, a world devoted to the perfect method of choosing a national champion) the NCAA could realign and then things would be more equitable, but that's not possible.

 

[methomps]

Thomps:

Maybe so, but as a fan of the game isn't high stakes what we're looking for? In considering your objection to the BCS, I am wondering your answer. Take Auburn 2004. We had 3 teams from 'power conferences' who were undefeated and "deserving" shots. We credited the two teams who had zero loss records, and who played more difficult schedules. In an 8 team playoff, and a 16 for that matter, you're going to see teams padding their OOC with patsies because SOS won't matter. We'd reward 2004 Auburn and their 60th rated schedule (And that was after playing Virginia Tech) instead of punishing it. For the fan in me, I say punish it. Give me better games to watch, because Ohio State v. Akron isn't a whole lot of fun.

But, I tell you this - if all you have to do is win 11 or 12 games to qualify - you're not going to be scheduling potential losses in your OOC. Likewise, we'd find reward for weak conferences as well... Blast through a shitty OOC and a Shitty Conf. and you're in!

I don't know that the BCS is really all that better in this regard. I think a lot of schools have decided that going undefeated is more important than worrying about being the odd man out. With three weeks to go this season, #1 and #2 were TTech (Eastern Washington, @ Nevada, SMU, UMass) and Alabama (@ Clemson, Tulane, Western Kentucky, Arkie St). Both of those teams were at the bottom end of the schedule strength rung among the contenders this season.

Another problem is that having the worst SOS of a group of three teams doesn't necessarily mean you tried to schedule bad. Sometimes things don't work out the way they should. In 2002, BYU, Auburn, Hawaii, and ND went 34 and 18 combined. Unfortunately for USC, in 2003 they went 26 and 25. USC lost out to LSU (LA-Monroe, @ Arizona, Western Illinois, La. Tech) by 0.16 points.

 

[TGfan06]

So when will ESPN and Josh Elliot start ripping the NFL for not having a great system...

With the Cards in the Superbowl, does this cast a huge cloud over the fact that the Patriots went 11-5 (better record plus big time head to head win) yet wasn't given a shot at the playoffs? I can see someone making the argument they were playing the best at the end of the year...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I don't know that the BCS is really all that better in this regard. I think a lot of schools have decided that going undefeated is more important than worrying about being the odd man out. With three weeks to go this season, #1 and #2 were TTech (Eastern Washington, @ Nevada, SMU, UMass) and Alabama (@ Clemson, Tulane, Western Kentucky, Arkie St). Both of those teams were at the bottom end of the schedule strength rung among the contenders this season.

Another problem is that having the worst SOS of a group of three teams doesn't necessarily mean you tried to schedule bad. Sometimes things don't work out the way they should. In 2002, BYU, Auburn, Hawaii, and ND went 34 and 18 combined. Unfortunately for USC, in 2003 they went 26 and 25. USC lost out to LSU (LA-Monroe, @ Arizona, Western Illinois, La. Tech) by 0.16 points.

Not saying the BCS is better, just that to change it there should be a reason other than changing for the sake of changing it it. In other words, identify a problem with the BCS and show how a PO fixes that.

If TTU or Bama's schedule was enough to get in to the BCSNCG, then so be it. I think they're taking a risk. And as for trying or not trying to schedule a bum schedule - to me - it doesn't much matter. I obvioulsy think it "worse" to go out and schedule shit schedule after shit schedule than it is to try and schedule a good one and end up playing teams like Michigan who are down, but weren't when scheduled. Its not about BLAME or any thing.... it's about what you earned. You can't help that your schedule turned to shit because Michigan changed coaches. But, that doesn't change the fact that your schedule is STILL shit (Even including Ohio State's 2007 slate... didn't schedule Washington as an assured win, but tough shit Brutus... Washington sucked when you actually played. If the Buckeyes got left out after playing YSU and Akron then... the got what they "deserved," if you ask me.). Sorry. If it's enough, fine.... but if it's not, you'll get no tears from me. I don't blame you, but I don't want to see you play when some other team did better against a schedule that was stronger in fact - state of mind when developing that schedule notwithstanding.

 

[23Skidoo]

You can't help that your schedule turned to [censored] because Michigan changed coaches.

I'm going to get self-congratulatory, but this is exactly why I'm happy Tressel and company schedule "tough" OOC opponents like Texas and USC. UW didn't pan out of course, and they won't always, but more times than not it has.
I've got a lot of respect for schools like USC and Tennessee that schedule good home and aways as well.