Would a four-team playoff solve BCS problems?

 

We had a very lively discussion yesterday about the BCS and the possibility of going to a four-team or eight-team playoff when the current contract expires after the 2013 regular season. It made me think of some research that I did about a year ago, showing that a four-team playoff would have addressed many of the major controversies that have plagued the BCS since its inception in 1998.

I’ve updated some stuff, but here are what the national championship semifinals would have been for the past 11 years using the BCS formula.

Here is your homework assignment for today. Based on these semifinals, which team would have emerged as the national champion? And which semifinals do you really like?

Example: In 2008 Florida and Alabama, who played one of the best SEC championship games ever, could have won their semifinals and met again for the BCS title. Does Florida win the rematch?

Just look over this list and give me your winners or any thoughts you have about the semifinals and potential championship games.

Here is one thing to keep in mind. A four-team playoff would address a lot of problems, but not all of them. Look at Georgia n 2007. The Bulldogs would have gotten squeezed out of a four-team playoff despite being ranked No. 4 on Championship Saturday. Now how controversial would that have been?

Enjoy.

 

2008

No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 4 Alabama (12-1)

No. 2 Florida (12-1) vs. No. 3 Texas (11-1)

Note: A four-team playoff this season would have still left a bunch of teams mad. No. 5 Southern Cal (11-1), whose only loss was on a Thursday night at Oregon State (27-21), believed it was the best team in the country.  No. 6 Utah (12-0) and No. 7 Texas Tech (11-1), who beat Texas, could also make a claim. I believe that if the voters in the polls had been picking four teams instead of two, they would have voted Southern Cal ahead of Alabama in the final BCS Standings because the Crimson Tide was coming off a loss. I’m not saying I agree with that, but that is what I believe the voters would have done.

 

2007

No. 1 Ohio State (11-1) vs. No. 4 Oklahoma (11-2)

No. 2 LSU (11-2) vs. No. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2)

Note: Georgia and its fans would have been fuming. The Bulldogs (10-2) were No. 4 on Championship Saturday but were leapfrogged by conference championship game winners LSU, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma in the final standings and would have gotten squeezed out of the playoff.

 

2006

No. 1 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 4 LSU (10-2)

No. 2 Florida (12-1) vs. No. 3 Michigan (11-1)

Note:  Here is where a four-team playoff addresses a couple of problems. After losing a close game to Ohio State (42-39), Michigan thought it deserved a rematch with the Buckeyes in the BCS championship game. Florida jumped over the idle Wolverines by winning the SEC title. Michigan would have gotten its shot if it could beat Florida in the semifinals.

 

2005

No. 1 Southern Cal (12-0) vs. No. 2 Ohio State (9-2)

No. 2 Texas (12-0) vs. No. 3 Penn State (10-1)

Note:  College football fans might have gotten mad if either Southern Cal or Texas had been upset in the semifinals. They were clearly the best two teams in the country this season and played the best BCS championship game ever (at 41-38 win by Texas in the Rose Bowl.)

 

2004

No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 4 Texas (10-1)

No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 3 Auburn (12-0)

 Note: Urban Meyer’s undefeated Utah (11-0) team, ranked 6th, probably felt like it deserved a shot. Here a four-team playoff would have addressed one of the biggest controversies of the BCS era: An undefeated SEC championship team from Auburn that got left out.

 

2003

No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 4 Michigan (10-2)

No. 2 LSU (12-1) vs. No. 3 Southern Cal (11-1)

Note: The four-team playoff would have addressed another major BCS controversy. Southern Cal finished No. 1 in both human polls but finished No. 3 in the final BCS standings. This year made the BCS adjust its formula to give more weight to the human polls.

 

2002

No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 4 Southern Cal (10-2)

No. 2 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 3 Georgia (12-1)

Note:  A four-team playoff would have given a shot to Georgia, whose only loss was to Florida. It would have also given a shot to Southern Cal and Carson Palmer, the Heisman Trophy winner.

 

2001

No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 4 Oregon (10-1)

No. 2 Nebraska (11-1) vs. No. 3 Colorado (10-2)

Note: This is a year when the four-team playoff could have saved the BCS a lot of embarrassment. Oregon, the Pac-10 champ, was ranked No. 2 in the human polls but No. 4 in the final BCS standings. Nebraska, which lost its last regular season game to Colorado (62-36) finished No. 2 in the standings and got destroyed by Miami in the BCS championship game in the Rose Bowl.

 

2000

No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 4 Washington (10-1)

No. 2 Florida State (11-1) vs. No. 3 Miami (10-1)

Note: Miami was ranked No. 2 in the final human polls and had beaten Florida State (27-24) during the regular season. But when the numbers were crunched, Florida State edged out Miami for the No. 2 spot against Oklahoma in the BCS championship game. A rematch between the Miami and Florida State in the semifinals would have been must-see TV.

 

1999

No. 1 Florida State (11-0) vs. No. 4 Alabama (10-2)

No. 2 Virginia Tech (11-0) vs. No. 3 Nebraska (11-1)

Note: Nebraska’s only loss during the season was to Texas (24-20 in Austin) and the Cornhuskers later avenged that loss by beating the Longhorns in the Big 12 championship game (22-6). Nebraska might have given Michael Vick and company a pretty good game in the semifinals. It would have been interesting to see how Alabama, the SEC champ, would have fared against Chris Weinke and Florida State.

 

1998

No. 1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. No. 4 Ohio State (10-1)

No. 2 Florida State (10-1) vs. No. 3 Kansas State (11-1)

Note: Four team playoff would have given another life to Kansas State, which lost to Texas A&M (36-33, double overtime) in the Big 12 championship game and got knocked out of the BCS title game. I don’t think any of these teams were going to beat Tennessee that season

 

.

147 comments Add your comment

matt r

April 23rd, 2009
8:45 am

I say no… still need to give the conference winners their shot with at least 8 teams.

Spanky

April 23rd, 2009
8:50 am

I don’t think any conference would agree to this without having a clause that stipulates all of the participants need to be conference champions.

m

April 23rd, 2009
8:54 am

Everybody is stupid except me. I hate everybody.

Call 'em like I see 'em

April 23rd, 2009
8:57 am

1998 – OSU over FSU
1999 – FSU over Nebraska
2000 – FSU over Oklahoma
2001 – Miami over Nebraska
2002 – OSU over Miami
2003 – LSU over Oklahoma
2004 – USC over Oklahoma
2005 – USC over Texas
2006 – OSU over Michigan
2007 – LSU over Oklahoma
2008 – Texas over Oklahoma (or USC over Texas)

Wayx Dawg

April 23rd, 2009
9:07 am

Like the idea of eight teams- 6 conf champs, 2 at large based on BCS. An SEC Champ loser has to be as deserving as a WAC champ. Would have to cut a game off reg season though. Never happen though, extra game makes lots of revenue for schools.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
9:11 am

A 4 team does not solve enough problems and an 8 team takes far to much away from the regular season, makes the season to long, and takes away from the bowls. If the regular is not as important TV ratings and revenue will fall for many of the teams during the regular season. March Madness has killed the basketball regular season.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
9:12 am

To clarify the 8 team playoff takes away from the non BCS bowls which generate alot of money.

Huh?

April 23rd, 2009
9:35 am

1998 – Tennessee
1999 – Nebraska
2000 – Miami
2001 – Miami
2002 – Georgia
2003 – LSU
2004 – Auburn
2005 – Texas
2006 – Florida
2007 – BCS: LSU; AP: Georgia
2008 – Florida

Zach

April 23rd, 2009
9:36 am

Call em Like I See ‘Em…. your 2000 prediction is interesting, because what DID happen was Florida State played Oklahoma (in Miami, no less) and got DESTROYED – they only scored 2 points. I guess having another game against Miami before the championship would have really helped the noles.

MT

April 23rd, 2009
9:37 am

is it just me or does the case become less compelling for a playoff as you move from the beginning of the BCS to the present day? The last compelling year for a playoff in my mind is 2004/Auburn.

I have never understood how everyone talks playoffs without insisting on conference championship games for every league; Big Ten/Pac 10 skate by every year with one less game against teams that have scouted them and know them the best.

Force every team (and every league) to end up as part of a 12 team conference and use those. There would be a lot less controversy with Ohio St losing every year in their conference championship game.

joe

April 23rd, 2009
9:39 am

Gotta disagree with Otto…when the bowl season rolls around, I’m still watching the games ’cause other than them, you got the NFL season winding down and Christmas commercials everywhere. In Jan-March, I’m watching the regular season BBall games, leading up to March madness. The argument that a playoff ruins the regular and/or bowl season is pure hogwash…

SimpleDawg

April 23rd, 2009
9:50 am

First point of order is that the Big 10 + 1 and the Pac 10 must hold a conference championship game to be considered for the BCS playoff. UGA’s not winning their conference should have disqualified them from the national championship in 2007.

Notre Dame could join the Big 10 + 1, giving it 12 members; the Pac 10 could add Utah and Boise State, giving them 12 members – and give Utah and Boise St a chance to play with some big boys each year to see how they match up. Some of the other conferences may have to rearrange some of it’s memberships for eligibility.

Now, everyone is competing on a similar platform – granted from year to year conference strengths may rise and fall – but at least each team competing for the national championship is certified conference champion….no quirks in a schedule to allow a team to duck the best teams in the conference.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
9:50 am

Ratings for the games will fall outside of the playoffs just as they have in Basketball.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742373482279229.html

In 1992, 34 million people watched Michigan and Duke play the NCAA final. In 2004, half that many tuned in to see Connecticut beat Georgia Tech. It was the second atrocious rating in as many years

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
9:54 am

If a team has to be a certified conf champ to play in the 8 team playoff what incentive would a SEC champ UGA have to play any star players against GT? What incentive will there be for OOC matchups?

If you think the 2 at large spots will keep the OOC matchups and late season games interesting. IMO the 2 at large spot most years will go to non BCS teams making it very long odds to get one of those 2 spots.

Tails from The Swamp

April 23rd, 2009
9:55 am

The problem Tony is exactly what you mentioned with the Georgia example. Yes, a 4 team would be better than now but would still not satisfy everyone, then soon you would have a push for 8 teams and then 18 teams. If you are to decide on a playoff, might as well go ahead and go to an NFL type format and in that case…might as well just become the NFL! It’s not a perfect system, but I think using the coaches poll plus the media poll plus strength of schedule is a formula that maintains enough of the integrity of the game while keeping things interesting and keeping us talking about it, like this article.

Matt

April 23rd, 2009
9:57 am

OH MY GOD, I CAN”T STOP LAUGHING AT “HUH?”’s 2002 NATIONAL CHAMPION!!! ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT TEAM COULD HAVE BEATEN OHIO STATE OR AN AWESOME MIAMI TEAM? Okay, I’m over it. My take:

1999: UT
2000: FSU
2001: Miami
2002-2005: USC (they are always peaking in January)
2006: UF
2007: LSU
2008: USC (because of what T-Bone said about the voters)

In the end, SEC fans should be happy with what we have right now, because it keeps USC out of it, and they own our teams – they just can’t beat the Pac-10 teams. Just my $0.02, but you UGA fans are insane if you think UGA could have beaten Miami that year — they were loaded and UGA overachieved all year and then beat a terrible FSU team in the bowl game, so they were not near as good as their ranking.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
9:59 am

Matt, when was the last time Ohio St beat a SEC team?

m

April 23rd, 2009
9:59 am

We need a 16 team playoff. We do need the participants based on idiots like Tony Barnyards opinion. Last year you could won a billion dollars betting on UTAH because everyone of you idiots would have picked alabammer. LET THE GAMES BE DECIDED ON THE FIELD. Get rid of the BCS. A 16 team playoff would be the most exciting sporting event in history. And then we would have a true champion and not a bulllshiite champion like floriduh last year when Utah was much more deserving.

PTC DAWG

April 23rd, 2009
10:00 am

I fail to see why an 8 team playoff takes away from the regular season. With only 2 at large bids at stake, it seems to reason that BCS Conference teams would want to play at least one STRONG OOC (UGA plays 3 OOC BCS games in 09, 2 on the road, who else does that?) game to bolster their appeal. It also leaves very little in doubt that a team better win its Conference or they are not in. How does that hurt the regular season? One guarantee per Conference is not very much. Win or you have no shot at the BCS MNC. At least a VOTE isn’t usually involved. I could have seen last year being an issue, Either Bama/TX or TT would have been left out of an 8 team playoff. But #9 looking in is much better than leaving #3 on the stoop.

Jon P

April 23rd, 2009
10:07 am

I agree that an 8 team playoff would work best, but the 4 team playoff would have been better than what we did get (especially in 2001 when UGA was 13-1 and left out). If it goes to a 4 team playoff, I believe that an 8 team playoff is not far behind. I’d be willing to take “baby steps” to walk out of the current BCS mess. The only conferences that are in love with the bowl system are the PAC-10 and the Big 10. Let them live in the past and exclude them if necessary. It would be their own decision and then they could cry about how great the Rose Bowl is and that they are the true champions. The only Rose Bowl that has been worth watching lately was the one between USC and Texas! Why don’t they see that no one outside of their conferences cares about a PAC-10 vs Big 10 Rose Bowl based soley on tradition? What are they so afraid of? Traditions are good if they have a purpose and this one doesn’t. It’s time to create new traditions that will crown a true national champion in college football.

Voice of Reason

April 23rd, 2009
10:07 am

there have been two people ho have said that USC would have won in 2005 over Texas…. they played that game!! Texas won! Why do you morons think it would have been any different if there was one more game before it. Keep up Matt and Call em like I see em

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:07 am

PT,C one of those 2 at large bids will go to a non BCS teams. The voters will be sure to make it happens. The remaining at large would go to Texas last year or UGA in ‘07 in rare cases.

It was not long ago that OOC big games were rare in the SEC. UF still does not play them outside of FSU and Miami at times both State rivals. Why? because they do not have to. UGA and Auburn need those games to win tie breakers and get in the BCS hunt. 2004 is a prime example where the OOC schedule hurt them. If you depend on the conf. champs for 6 of the 8, the ADs will play the odds and put everything in a conf championship.

Tails from The Swamp

April 23rd, 2009
10:07 am

I think the posts you see here so far…some saying 4 teams is fine, some saying no you need at least 8 and others saying we need 16 to really determine a champion just solidifies my case (previous post).

m

April 23rd, 2009
10:07 am

We need a 16 team playoff. We DON’T need the participants based on idiots like Tony Barnyards opinion. Last year you could won a billion dollars betting on UTAH because everyone of you idiots would have picked alabammer. LET THE GAMES BE DECIDED ON THE FIELD. Get rid of the BCS. A 16 team playoff would be the most exciting sporting event in history. And then we would have a true champion and not a bulllshiite champion like floriduh last year when Utah was much more deserving.

Voice of Reason

April 23rd, 2009
10:08 am

and Matt… why do you say that USC owns the SEC teams… when was the last time they beat a legitimate SEC team??

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
10:11 am

98- Tenn
99- FSU
00- Miami
01- Colorado (one of the strongest teams I’ve seen in a long time)
02- OSU- (Yes, I’m a UGA fan and alum-don’t think we would have done it)
03-LSU
04-Auburn- I think they had as much weaponry as USC or Texas
05-USC
06-LSU
07-LSU (I still say UGA could of beaten any team at end of year and woud have won this one.)
08-Florida- Utah deserved more of a shot than Bama but UF still wins it.

Voice of Reason

April 23rd, 2009
10:12 am

Utah could never have beaten Florida and you know it. They got lucky and caught Bammer by surprise.

Huh?

April 23rd, 2009
10:14 am

Matt, I would say my opinion is far more credible than yours since you have Tennessee as the 1999 Champion (they won it in 1998 you clueless goob), have USC as the 2005 Champion (lost to Texas on a football field in JANUARY), and are generally a whiny little crybaby that pees his pants anytime someone says anything remotely positive about the Georgia Bulldogs. You’re probably a Techie trying to pretend you know something about big boy college football. I’d put my money on that.

m

April 23rd, 2009
10:14 am

Everyone of you idiots are stupid beyond belief. I can’t believe I waste my time here dealing with such stupidity. Everyone is stupid but me.

Voice of Reason

April 23rd, 2009
10:15 am

Dean— Texas beat USC in 2005 so therefore Texas would have won. Thought you must have forgotten that.

MiltonDawg

April 23rd, 2009
10:16 am

Anybody know when the last time USC played a SEC team? Would love to see some future OOC games featuring the so-called Trojans against some good SEC teams. Can you imagine??

Voice of Reason

April 23rd, 2009
10:18 am

they played the mighty Arkansas years back because they wanted to prove they can handle the SEC… they really showed us since everyone else in the SEC beat Arkansas also!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:18 am

Tails from the swamp, I agree. Yesterday the 4 team or plus 1 would have won the vote and today more are wanting a 8 team playoff when the 4 team is shot down.

CFB is the most debated and watched than any other sport during their offseason. The system works and creates a sport that more people want to follow and pay big bucks to see. What other sport can pack 40k to 90k for an offseason scrimmage? Everyone is talking about Bama vs. VT a year in advance do you hear near as much in other sports? No because in CFB you have one chance to even begin to control your destiny.

m

April 23rd, 2009
10:18 am

I don’t care what any of you say…just say it with your own handle. Don’t be such a coward and try to steal my handle.

Clint

April 23rd, 2009
10:19 am

Like you said, people would still cry and moan about being left out. There is no perfect solution. If you go to a 8 team field, teams 9-11 will cry. If you go to a 16 team field, teams 17-19 will be the criers. They should just go back to the 20 polls they had in the 40s and 50s. Then about every team could claim a piece of the national championship pie.

Tails from The Swamp

April 23rd, 2009
10:19 am

I love all of these fans speculating now on who would have won (or rather who they would have like to have won). See, now if you you would have had an NFL style playoff, it would be one less thing to talk about!!! Of course you could have gone back to the ole reliable “should’ve would’ve could’ve” that I see on this “Dawg” post frequently.

Archie

April 23rd, 2009
10:20 am

8 team playoff, conference champs only. That makes all 8 games in the conference schedule a do or die game, no margin for error. Right now, teams have to be as perfect as possible to be a championship contender and that’s what makes the games so nail biting each week, this system keeps that. The non-conference games would carry no weight at all in this system, but right now teams have very little to gain and everything to lose by playing strong nonconference games. The risk-reward factor is off balance. This system restores that risk-reward ratio to a realistic level. Team can now play strong opponents that prepare them for their conference season, without worrying about whether it ruins their championship hopes or not. On the other hand though, it does kinda make for a four game preseason. However, the greatest thing about college football is watching two teams playing for their championship lives each and every week, this system keeps that in tact.

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
10:20 am

Yeah, anytime in this scenario that I had a matchup that contained the actual competing teams I went with who actually won the game. Not do to so just shows lack of knowledge and disqulaifies you from commenting on this subject anymore.

Mony

April 23rd, 2009
10:22 am

Tony, this might take more work, but what about the alternative plus 2, which I think has more of a chance of happening, at least in the next BCS iteration. That is, BCS bowls have the traditional pre-Bowl Alliance matchups (e.g. PAC-10 v. Big 10 in Rose, Big 12 in Fiesta (or Cotton if it makes it), SEC in Sugar, ACC in Orange, and at-larges as opponents). After the bowl games, a committee (or a new BCS ranking) votes on the top 2 teams to play against each other. This increases the TV ratings of many/all of the BCS games while preserving a chance for a team like Utah or Auburn in years past to make the title game. Baby steps.

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
10:23 am

Darn, I can’t get 04 and 05 straight. Too many boilermakers those years!

joe

April 23rd, 2009
10:25 am

Didn’t Florida beat Alabama in the SEC Championship game? Didn’t Texas beat Oklahoma? Why have another game when the championship game should have been Florida and Texas!

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
10:26 am

I see now what I did. I called a Penn State upset. I figured that 10-15% of the time there would be an upset. That was one of them.

Steve

April 23rd, 2009
10:27 am

A four way playoff is the only way to keep the regular season meaningful. I would rather see the debate about 4 & 5, then 2 & 3.

alsim

April 23rd, 2009
10:30 am

One stipulation, they would need to change the NCAA rules to allow the Big Ten and the Pac-10 to have a MANDATORY CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP.

Other than that, it is a good start. I have never known a #5 team worthy of a shot at the National Championship. Maybe there are #3s and 4s who don’t deserve it either but I think those things would be worked out in the two game to be played.

.

Gatorzone

April 23rd, 2009
10:31 am

m, what are you so mad about? did you forget the “thank God and Greyhound Gailey is gone” line?

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:31 am

Mony, what happens when Utah plays say a ACC champ and wins. OU plays someone in the Fiesta wins and UF wins the Sugar? You still have voters who can select the game we had and still leave out Utah or one of the 2 teams that played in very tough fought matchup sitting at home.

Call 'em like I see 'em

April 23rd, 2009
10:33 am

Yes, I *DO* think having an extra game against a top tier oppontent would change the on field results from a few years where teams played close games. USC was a better team than Texas in 2005; they were overconfident and got a few bad breaks. Taking nothing from Texas, I believe if they played again or in a series, USC would win out. It’s all hype-pathetical anyway… nothing is changing, and nothing should. A plus one in this format creates a lot of rematches that shouldn’t be played.

Tails from The Swamp

April 23rd, 2009
10:34 am

Hey Tony, since so many of these fans want a playoff so badly, why don’t we just START with a playoff and include EVERY team and forget about the regular games and rivalrys and and all those things that don’t really matter. That way you don’t have to be worrying about altering schedules or having to modify the system later or somebody being left out.

G8R GRAD

April 23rd, 2009
10:40 am

Voice of Reason:
“Utah could never have beaten Florida and you know it. They got lucky and caught Bammer by surprise.”

HOW, pray tell, did UF catch UA by SURPRISE?!! We were steamrolling every team we played after our loss to Ole Miss and we beat the Tide on a neutral field – without Percy Harvin!

If anyone caught Sabin & Co. by surprise, it was the UTES!

G8R GRAD

April 23rd, 2009
10:42 am

Sorry Nick, I meant S-A-B-A-N.

G8R GRAD

April 23rd, 2009
10:45 am

SimpleDawg:
“Notre Dame could join the Big 10 + 1, giving it 12 members; the Pac 10 could add Utah and Boise State, giving them 12 members – and give Utah and Boise St a chance to play with some big boys each year to see how they match up.”

Best suggestion I’ve seen today.

G8R GRAD

April 23rd, 2009
10:48 am

Voice of Reason:

Apologies.
I misread your post.
(I need more coffee!)

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:51 am

Archie non Conf games are on the rise see my post at 10:07. I’ll add OSU and USC and before that OSU and Texas. Texas’ win over OSU set their path for the Rose and USC.

G8R grad, what about BYU who killed UCLA, and Fresno St who is always playing one of the toughest OOC schedules in the country.

Tails from The Swamp

April 23rd, 2009
10:55 am

Bottom line people: NOTHING is a perfect solution…either you have a comphrehensive playoff system that satisfies everyone but takes away from the regular season or you have a tweaked current system that makes every game like life or death…

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
10:56 am

it would certainly be more fair…. but then again much of this could be solved if the first weekend in december were conference championship games for every conference too.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:57 am

Tails I think we both agree to take the current life or death every week system. Even teams that are not in the running for a title are playing for a better bowl at the end of the regular season.

Tony Barnhart

April 23rd, 2009
11:01 am

Mony,

Your idea of picking two teams after the bowls to play for the national championship was first raised to me by Vince Dooley over 15 years ago. He used the same argument: Every bowl that hosts a major conference winner would be relevant because it could potentially send a team to the national championship game. The bowls (and their sponsors), of course, would not like it unless you promised to let them also host the NC game on a rotating basis.

Always understand that you have to look at these formats through the prism of finances first.

Also, for those of you who are talking about forcing the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East to have a conference championship game: Can’t do it. Can’t make any kind of rules change to compel a conference to grow and hold a championship. The NCAA structure doesn’t allow it and neither would the courts. I’ve checked it out.

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:02 am

There are some conferences mainly the SEC where outside of playing USC the championship game might as well be giftwrapped.

Texas was better than Oklahoma last year but they screwed up on 1 play at the wrong time. USC played likely thier worst half of football in a decade at Corvalis and it cost them. Georgia didn’t take care of Tennessee and was a late blooming team that year.

It takes a lot of luck to get into the championship games, but I don’t remember any of those where I felt like the better team didn’t win other than maybe USC/Texas and Vince Young was just electrifying in that one.

Gatorman770

April 23rd, 2009
11:02 am

A 16 team playoff is the only fair way to go to prevent the likes of what happened to Auburn and Utah in 2004 and Utah again in 2008. All conferences should be represented and independents like Notra Dame should join a conference or get left out!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:03 am

PMC the past 2 year the conferences with the championship games have created 2 of the biggest debates. Tx vs OU, and UGA vs LSU.

Steve

April 23rd, 2009
11:04 am

Why does the PAC-10 need a championship game when they play a round robin with every conference member?

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:05 am

On the other hand, what if we did away with championship games in major conferences.

How fun would that be deciding who won the SEC or Big 12 or ACC?

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:06 am

OU was better than Texas but Stoops screwed up by going for it on 4th down. OU killed Tx Tech. Tx Tech even if they lost played Tx tough.

It was a 3 way tie and OU had the only decisive win in the games played between the 3 teams.

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
11:18 am

A modest solution:

1) Have the regular season and Championship Saturday just like we have now.

2) On the Sunday following the Conf. Championship games the bowls select teams like was done in the pre-BCS era: SEC goes to the Sugar, Big Ten and Pac 10 to the Rose and so forth, i.e., by whatever resulting match-ups the market dictate. If the Fiesta can outbid the Orange for the Big 12 Champ then so be it.

3) Here is the change: You take the Top 4 Ranked Conference winners ONLY and seed them 1-4. No. 1 and 2 play at home on campus two weeks after Championship Saturday vs. No. 3 and 4 respectively.

4) Winners will play for an actual, not mythical, National Chamionship roughly 10 to 14 days after the bowls are complete. The outcome of the bowls do not matter.

This eliminates any possibility of rematches, eliminates any possibility of non-conference champs winning National Titles and leads to an objective, inarguable champ. (If you are the fifth ranked conf. champ, just shut up. Being 5th doesn’t make a good argument for deserving to be No. 1. Besides the fifth ranked conference champ is likely to be in the bottom half or out of the Top-Ten in the polls.)

Most importantly it does not water down the regular season OR the bowl games. Bowl games are seperate unique titles as they were intended to be.

Miles

April 23rd, 2009
11:20 am

Take the top EIGHT teams from the BCS and put them in a tournament similar ro what you’ve proposed. This will eliminate the justifiable crying from teams like Hawaii, Utah, Boise State, Troy State, Ball State, Tulsa, etc. Everyone will be happy, including Orrin Hatch.

Sam Robards

April 23rd, 2009
11:22 am

Only an 8-team playoff would work. If it were only 4, then worthy, non-BCS conference teams STILL wouldn’t get a shot (I don’t care what anyone says, Utah deserved a shot after the way they spanked ‘Bama last year). An 8-team playoff allows those teams a chance and it gives some teams that were close but lost one-or two games (who didn’t want to see a rematch of ‘Bama and Florida last year?) a chance to rebound.

They can keep the BCS formulas until the end of the year, then they go to playoff mode. All they have to do is use the four BCS bowls as the first round, add a week where two semi-final games are played, and then use the BCS Championship game for the finale. Yeah, you’d have to change the way the non-BCS bowls pick teams, but I think that should be redone anyway (that crap’s just silly).

And while we’re at it, throw Notre Dame into the Big X (XI), split it and give them a conference championship game (as well as some dignity). And, as someone said earlier, throw Boise State and Utah into the (crap) Pac-10, split it, and give them a championship game too.

As for who would have won past championships, I’ll stick with who actually won with the exceptions of 2002, 2004 and 2007. UGA would have won ‘02 and ‘07, and in 2004 Auburn would have beaten Southern Cal for the title.

JOHN

April 23rd, 2009
11:23 am

Why play in a conference if the champion is left out? The rule should be that only conference champions can play for the championship. If you don’t win your conference championship, you don’t deserve to be in a national championship game. This will also put more importance on conference play instead of weak non-conference games.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
11:24 am

STICK WITH WHAT WE HAVE!!!!i would rather have the voting controversies than a 9-7 arizona cardinals like team in the NC. You must address how hard a teams season is against quality opponents which is why undefeated Utahs still get left out. Beating one SEC team in one bowl game does nothing to say of your depth and quality. Play those caliber teams 5 times in one season and then i will respect your undefeated season.

Oh, and tech sucks.

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
11:25 am

Dorsey, I hear your argument but where does it leave a team like Texas last year who was left out of everything by the Big 12 by a strange twist in their rule system. Texas beat OU so IMO I think Oklahoma should have been left out. Then you get into the argument of some conferences just stronger than others. Is it right to punish a great team from the SEC who is second best in the conferenc but heads and shoulders better than all the other teams. I don’t know-just throwing it out there. There is no perfect solution.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
11:25 am

Oh, and make those big ten yankee pu$$ies play a championship game!!!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:25 am

Doresy: You take the Top 4 Ranked Conference winners

As said before by taking conference winners you are in a way killing the regular season by reducing the importance of OOC matchups.

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
11:27 am

Every poster on here that’s not a tech fan should end with:
Oh, and tech sucks! Nice one Kenny Powers!

Oh, and tech sucks!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:27 am

Dean, Tx Tech beat Texas. If Texas Tech had more name recognition the win would be taken much more seriosuly.

Texas went on to win a close game against a down Ohio St.

The system worked and the SEC and ACC should adopt the same tie breaker.

Pago Flyer

April 23rd, 2009
11:28 am

Can the DAWGS beat gt and fl in something this year!!

Dean

April 23rd, 2009
11:30 am

So now we are determining championships by name recognition criteria. This sounds like Socialism.

Oh, and tech sucks!

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:33 am

Dean, the name recognition of OU and Tx being superior is what is being implied by not including Tx Tech in the debate. Texas Tech has just as much claim as Texas. OU had the only decisive win between the games played.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
11:34 am

This next post is to remind everyone of my 101mph heater awesomeness and python man organ 3rd legenenesss. If you know not what i speak of, get HBO. Kenny Powers says no to playoffs because it damn sure will devalue the regular season.

Oh, and tech sucks.

Gatorzone

April 23rd, 2009
11:37 am

Kenny Powers, that is a good point that is often overlooked when discussing UTAH. Play more than one difficult bowl game at the end of the year before whining about being shortchanged. If any team in the sEC played their scedule, there would be several undefeated teams.

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
11:39 am

Dean,

That the Big 12 had a dumb rule that kicked Texas out of the Conf. Champ game does not mean that the rest of us have to say that they should be in the Nat. Title mix. The Conferences control their rules. Texas knew the rules when they started and fell short.

Otto,

My proposal DOES NOT minimize the importance of the regular season at all. OOC games are important because losing them could mean that you are NOT a Top 4 conference Champ at the end. The beauty of my proposal is that every team controls its destiny. There is no luck. There is no backing in. Win your conference and be one of the Top four winners and you have a shot at it all. I have a hard time understanding how a team that does not meet the criteria could be herad to complain of unfairness. If you don’t win your conference you don’t deserve to be a National Champ. Why? Because presumably someone in your own conference was better, right?

m

April 23rd, 2009
11:43 am

Kenny,

I think if you look closely (45-42) you will see that is is indeed UGAG that sucks.

TGAG.

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:44 am

Texas Tech was not close to being equal to Texas or Oklahoma last year, they just matched up better with Texas and managed to eek out a win on a busted play at the end of a stretch of difficult weeks for Texas. Every team had a bad game last year. Oklahoma after being completely out of it, suddenly had a chance and it was against the paper tiger that was Texas Tech. Oklahoma’s defense might as well have been in the huddle that outcome was forgone before kickoff. Texas Tech doesn’t have the depth, facilities or talent at the positions that Oklahoma and Texas have. I don’t care that they were tied in record they play a garbage schedule the first 2 months of every season. The Big 12 according to the rules sent the proper team but Texas was better than Oklahoma last year. I can’t account for that stupid asterisk they put on the wall but they would have been stomped by Florida last year too so that doesn’t really matter.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:44 am

There is no luck. There is no backing in. Win your conference

Dorsey what inective is there to play them if you get an automatic bid by winning the conf? Winning the conf was how a big payday was won in the past and big OOC matchups were not nearly as common.

Aaron Mitchell

April 23rd, 2009
11:45 am

The last time USC played an SEC team was when they beat Arkansas 52-10. And it was the same Arkansas team thet went on to play Florida in the SEC Championship Game that year. What a joke. The SEC runner-up lost to USC by 40. Thats impressive.

PMC

April 23rd, 2009
11:48 am

Texas Tech had an all world receiver with a very good QB in a nice offensive scheme. They generally always have one or two giant very strong linemen. They have a very smart and resourceful head coach. Put that in any conference (see Ole Miss) and they are going to find a way to beat some very good team.

Texas Tech’s defense wasn’t close to what Oklahoma or Texas had. They simply do not have the depth that the other teams do.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
11:50 am

OU busted a play by going for it on 4th down against Texas. OU was looking to win easy earlier in the game.

The odd thing is if OU had beat Tx Tech in a close game, OU would win the Tie breakers in the SEC since Tx Tech would not have dropped so far in the rankings. Maybe Stoops would have called it off sooner under the SEC and ACC rules. In effect the SEC would punish a team for being vastly superior to their competition.

The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game,

****unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
11:53 am

Otto,

The motivation for playing OOC games has never been and will never be about qualifying for a playoff or getting a higher BCS ranking. Everyone knows avoiding those games is the best method for both and always has been. The motivation is to gain exposure, and to enhance both recruiting and revenue, period. If it was all about wins and losses and rankings NO ONE would play tough OOC games. The same logic applies to Conference Championship games. They kill team’s shots at BCS championships yet they ain’t going away. Why? Dollar, dollar bills, y’all.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
12:01 pm

Dorsey it absolutely is. Is UGA playing Okie St or Az Statue in place of traditional rival Clemson for fun? Clemson and UGA played every year up until the late 80s.

UGA wants to be recognized on the national stage and play for national titles.

Auburn is flamed in the media because they turned down UCLA. The game could have importance if a scenario like 2004 unfolds.

These things are leading to more OOC game.

However if you take away from this and give automatic play off births to conf championships, the teams will have less incentive to play these and further incentive to play the 2nd string in these games if the conf. title is already rapped up.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
12:02 pm

m, if you look closley, very closley, you might see your tiny pen!s.

BILLY JACK

April 23rd, 2009
12:06 pm

Tony-I think a 4 team playoff would work most years.You will occasionally have a Utah complaining or a Boise St but other than that I think it would work. Oh….and Tech sucks

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
12:12 pm

Otto, you are being an obstinate idiot. Who has UF gone out and played OOC other than their tradtional rivals and they’ve won 2 of the last 3? Hell, its been decades since they played an OOC game outside of the State. There is no OOC game/National Title nexus, period. They are unrelated issues. If playing good OOC games leads to Titles it is because you’ve enhanced your ability to attract players. Take 2009 for example. If we went 13-0 without playing ASU or Okie State we’d play for it all right? If we go 12 and 1 having lost to one of those teams we won’t right? So which gets you to the title? Not playing them right?

Now we may, theoretically be better positioned in 2012 to win one because we play those games but the OOC game on the 2012 could be the one that keeps you out. Its a balance of interests not a cause and effect.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
12:14 pm

I would also like to keep the current systems because I enjoy watching the SEC slap around every other major national power; i would like to see us play USC in the big dance.

Oh, and now tech and m suck.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
12:17 pm

UF can get away with it but obviously UGA and Auburn can not. UF gained alot of national recognition under Spurrier. Auburn lost 2004 because of name recognition furhter IMO UGA would not ahve passed OSU or Miami in ‘02 if they lost. UF would have much better chances. The polls are not fair and I am not crying about it. If I were UF’s AD i would schedule the same teams. UGA is doing what they have to in order to put their team in a position to win it all.

Dorsey Hill

April 23rd, 2009
12:22 pm

Otto,

Auburn didn’t make it because they did not start No 1 or No 2. USC and OK did start 1 and 2 and never lost. Auburn would have had to have had the forethought to schedule one of those teams and beat them 4 years in advance. They could have had Ohio State Texas Notre Dame and West Virginia on the schedule and they’d still have been left out.

murfdawg

April 23rd, 2009
12:31 pm

Congratulations people!!!
You have just proven why there will never be a playoff in cfb. Here we are four months after the last game and everyone is discussing cfb. Nobody is talking nfl, mlb and thank goodness nba. This is what the real “evil geniuses” who control cfb want. After the SuperBowl, there is no discussion. After the World Series, the mute button is hit. When there is a definitive champion crowned, there is no room for discussion. Why would CFB want to stop all this insanity that continues 12 months a year?

typical bulldawg fan

April 23rd, 2009
12:32 pm

If our line gels early we will win it all
if we avoid the injury bug we will be unstoppable
when tebow and meyer leaves we will own florida
when saban leaves we will own the sec
if we could have had Vandy beat UT in 07 we would be national champs
ifs and buts…..

PTC DAWG

April 23rd, 2009
12:33 pm

I would be against any playoff that guarantees a NON BCS School a place.

NO BCS

April 23rd, 2009
12:36 pm

Before there’s any talk about a playoff, all conferences that want to participate need to have a conference championship game. However, I do NOT believe a conference champion gets an automatic bid. It should be the top 4 or 8 teams when the final polls come out or however else you want to determine the rankings. I would not agree that a 3-loss Big East champion should take the place of say an 11-1 Alabama team that lost to 12-0 Florida in the SEC Championship Game. There are going to be conferences that have two legitimate teams, and to keep one out just so a weaker conference champion can be in the playoff would be wrong. I’m more in favor of just a 4-team playoff. However, I think the #1 and #2 teams should have home-field advantage. Let Florida play at Ohio State in December and see how good they really are. But we can talk all we want. A playoff will never happen unless conferences like the SEC or Big 12 or Big 10 boycott the current bowl system…and no one is going to give up that money.

PTC DAWG

April 23rd, 2009
12:38 pm

FWIW, the year that Southern Cal beat Ark in Fayetteville, they beat them by 36. And what makes the loser of the SECCG the SEC Runner up? Where is that written at? I can think of many years in the last 10 that at least 3 SEC East teams were better than the SEC W Champion.

Tide4u2c

April 23rd, 2009
12:39 pm

I am against playoffs. I can’t believe so many people seem to want to ruin college football with a playoff.There has always been debate about NC’s even before the BCS and plenty of teams were scre*ed out of NC’s even before(like Alabama in 66)the BCS. And yet we all love college football.

College football is its own brand it is not the NFL and should never be like the NFL or college basketball where only diehard college basketball fans pay attention to the regular season and only focus on the playoffs.

I hope and pray we don’t ruin college football for nothing because like I said yesterday a playoff would not have changed who won the NC.

Florida was the best team and would’ve won the NC even with a playoff yet college football would be ruined with a playoff and all for nothing.

Then we would regret it but it would be too late once we realized a playoff does not change who wins the NC. The big named schools do, not the little named teams, just like in college basketball the little named teams do not win, the big named schools do. Like North Carolina did this year.1 out 10 times a little team might get lucky and win in the end in a playoff but it would not be worth how bad a playoff totally ruined college football.

People like to bring up Auburn but Auburn had a weak schedule that year go back and look they knew the rules about SOS and yet scheduled a weak schedule and then wonder why they got left out. Rules are rules.A playoff would’ve gave them a 2nd chance which I don’t like, you either take care of business or you don’t.

PTC DAWG

April 23rd, 2009
12:40 pm

I also fail to see why a non conference champ can’t be included. IF the best two SEC/Big 12 teams happen to be in the same division, what difference does it make? The SEC East and the Big 12 South have had the best teams overall for the last 10 or so years of anyone.

G8R GRAD

April 23rd, 2009
12:46 pm

Murfdawg:

You’re as cynical as you are correct.

Gen Neyland

April 23rd, 2009
12:46 pm

Theory had it Alice didn’t fall down the rabbit hole. She was pushed. A conspiracy investigation ensued and bore out the facts it was all because of the Wonderland Cartel…That being said, remove the human factor. Use a Sagarin type system that puts into play everything but emotion and regional favoritism. No curve to the system. Schedule up, win, get in. Of course, playing in a conference of strength helps greatly…Other than that, go ask Alice ’cause it remains nothing but a pipe dream to date…

#5 RANKED TEAM

April 23rd, 2009
12:47 pm

Utah Utes National Champs

April 23rd, 2009
12:54 pm

Rubes are funny. So we’re going to have a final 4 without the most deserving team in the country? You probably all believe the South won the civil war. It is a shame Utah didn’t get a crack at Florida. What would the excuses be then — anyone can get lucky twice?? They beat 4 top 25 teams, and 2 top 10 teams. You all need to learn about sports.

Erk

April 23rd, 2009
12:58 pm

First you have to make the Big 10 and Pac 10 play a conference championship game. If they want to do their little meaningless Rose Bowl, so be it and everyone else can participate in the 4 team playoff to determine the real champion.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
1:06 pm

Dorsey, How do you get to be that No.1 or No.2. You win your conf by convincing margins as UF did or you win notable games OOC. UF dominated the SEC under Spurrier and is doing a good job of it with Urban.

Big Dawg

April 23rd, 2009
1:07 pm

Good Article three days in a row Tony,

Everybody has an opinion, it seems funny to me that almost every year since the inception (1869) of Big Time College Football there has been controvesy as to who was the true legitamate National Champion. Some say leave it alone because they like the contoversy others say a 4 team playoff, including you Tony, while others advocate either an 8, 16 or more playoff. IMHO an 8 team playoff would have eliminated the controversy in all the years of the BCS since 1998. As to prior to 1998 it also would have left no doubt as well. Looking back since 1998 as Tony has suggested I think the following would have happened under a 4 team playoff: Of course IMHO under an 8 team playoff GA would have played in at least 2 NC games and I believe they would have won it in 2007 but that is only my opinion.

1998 – Tennessee vs. FSU with Tenn winning
1999 – FSU vs Nebraska with FSU winning
2000 – Miami vs. Oklahoma with OK winning
2001 – Miami vs Colorado with Miami winning
2002 – Georgia vs Miami with Miami winning
2003 – LSU vs Oklahoma with LSU winning
2004 – USC vs. Auburn with USC winning
2005 – USC vs. Texas with Texas winning
2006 – Fl vs OSU with Fl winning
2007 – LSU vs. OK with LSU winning
2008 – Fl vs. Texas with Fl winning

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
1:11 pm

Tide and Murfdawg are dead on. You can not create any closer to perfection for creating year round media attention than what is in place.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
1:16 pm

2008 UF rolls Texas by 3 TDs. Bama with OL banged up falls to OU 49-10. OU and UF matchup with same results as last year.

Kenny Powers

April 23rd, 2009
1:17 pm

Utah Utes = powerderpuff schedule…Get a crack at Florida? that is a big deal to you because you play inferior talent all year and still need to prove it to yourself that you can beat winners in STRONG conferences.

One shot at big time teams do not validate you being at the table; big time teams have big ugly players that beat the crap out of you all season and you acquire injuries because of it.

What would Utah do if they had 18 season ending injuries in one year? Probably still would play Alabama because of your weak conference, but the result would be much different.

Not talking crap about your talent….It’s just that the Utah’s, Boise States’s, and especially Hawaii’s do not play enough talent during the season…Flordia State did that crap in the early 90’s because the played teams like:

Oh, and tech sucks.

the real Old Gold

April 23rd, 2009
1:21 pm

I love a 4 team playoff, as long as they don’t try to ruin the big 4 bowls using them to play the games.

Tide4u2c

April 23rd, 2009
1:34 pm

I just don’t want college football ruined and I know if we went to a playoff the little named schools will not have much of a chance just like in college basketball.Even had Utah played in the NC game Florida would’ve beat them.And why have a NC game with Florida vs Utah when there schedule was weaker than Oklahoma’s,USC’s and Texas’s)? Why not Florida vs USC or Texas? It would draw a much bigger audience and would be much more interesting. But this does not mean I don’t think the BCS could not be tweaked to make it a better system.Like they could put more emphasis on the strength of schedule which would force teams to schedule tougher opponents or something like this.

Adam

April 23rd, 2009
1:35 pm

Scenario:

An SEC team with 3 losses (OOC or otherwise) defeats an undefeated SEC team in the CCG. Does that mean that the 3 loss team (could be ranked 10 or lower) automatically gets into playoff just because they lucked up and one the SECCG?

There is no perfect solution.

By the way…m you suck.

JJ

April 23rd, 2009
1:37 pm

ALABAMA? You mean the same Alabama that got plastered by Utah in the Sugar Bowl?

SEC is overrated and plays a pansy OOC schedule every year. Just check out Bama’s murder’s row of Texas State, FIU and UTC…. Bama fans must be so proud! At least they don’t have to get pounded by Utah again or beaten again by Louisana Monroe

Tails from The Swamp

April 23rd, 2009
1:42 pm

THANK YOU ALL…for continuing to make my case stronger and stronger(please see earlier posts).

Barack Obama

April 23rd, 2009
1:50 pm

Well, in only a couple of hours now, I’ll have the honor of meeting and recognizing the “mythical” college football champs, Urban Meyer and the Mighty Florida Gators! I’ve got the East Room all decorated in brilliant orange and blue (none of that faded Tennessee orange in here) and I’ve been practicing the Go Gator! all night. Michele’s even wearing her new bikini from J. Crew just in case anyone requests the gatorvictory pole dance!! In the meantime, I’m gonna be doing the Go Gator!…It’s sweeping the Nation! Anybody seen my little dog…?

Gatorzone

April 23rd, 2009
1:52 pm

Who did Utah beat before they played Alabama? TCU by 3… Whoop te do!

AliGator

April 23rd, 2009
1:58 pm

…you mean that little Portugese “water” dog?? chomp chomp…no,haven’t seen him…

athensdawg

April 23rd, 2009
2:00 pm

why don’t we just post the entire list of winners of the MNC in the history of the NCAA and everyone can play “what if” until August…that would serve about as much purpose as the current discussion.

all this is like listening to Cubs fans talk about how they have always been so close to winning the world series……..

Dixie Dog

April 23rd, 2009
2:05 pm

Tony,

You’ve got this all wrong. The correct way to come the closest to getting this is to leave the Bowl system as is and after the Bowls take the highest ranked four teams. Keeps the Bowl system, still retains their value and gives a playoff and true or truer National Champion. Come on, don’t make this harder than it should be or we’ll put you on the NCAA payroll.

Voice of Reason

April 23rd, 2009
2:27 pm

JJ- please name a team that plays a better OOC schedule than UGA. Thanks!

Mark

April 23rd, 2009
2:28 pm

If folks want football with playoffs, it’s already there. They can watch every Sunday afternoon and Monday night. The college game is different from the pro game. I’d like to keep it that way.

GT

April 23rd, 2009
2:34 pm

Basketball has been an eyeopener to me. If it was this easy why can’t I ever even get the final four brackets right. This year was the best at keeping the seeding but that is because the teams play each in intersection games so much that it becomes easier to figure out. A team like Davidson that is isolated in the Southern Conference sneaks up on us and I imagine Charleston was more desiring this year to go to the NCAA that a lot of “big conference” teams. Football has a lot of that isolation and a lot of it is done on purpose. We assume too much and we seem to ignore the new era of football with parity to please a large following of fans built up in the open era when ex cons and bums were allowed to join teams by the dozens with no limit or qualifications nor an early pro draft taking the cream. A team like South Florida can come from nowhere in no time because of parity and low entry requirements. The problem is Central Florida may be doing the same thing and the two meet each other with 12 thousand in the stands and no one recognizes they are watching real football. Watch TCU it is happen there right now. . Reconizing what you are seeing is an art few of us have yet most of us think we do. Bobby Dodd had it, he could figure out who he wanted to play and who could beat him, he also could figure out talent and knew in recruiting what he was looking for. If the polls consisted of men like Dodd or Dooley who had the same kind of eyes I would be all for it but it doesn’t it has the eyes of a slick salesman trying to make a buck.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
2:57 pm

GT most of these teams can play one game with the BCS powers but do not have a 2nd string to keep up for an entire season. Why reward their easier schedule and let them come into the playoffs with a healthy team playing teams battered by a long season?

Sam Houston

April 23rd, 2009
2:59 pm

Everybody keeps talking about missed class time and making the season too long. Football players miss less time than any sport and who keeps adding games to the regular season

f

Ted Striker

April 23rd, 2009
3:43 pm

A four team playoff won’t cut it.

Tired Eyes

April 23rd, 2009
3:48 pm

Who cares? The NCAA has said repeatedly they are not going to a playoff system. Let’s just keep beating this dead horse!

Barack Obama

April 23rd, 2009
3:52 pm

You Go Girl! Go Gator! Go Gator! Go Gator! Hott!!

Barack Obama

April 23rd, 2009
4:02 pm

Heeere Bo! Heeere puppy!…Where are you,Bo???

USC

April 23rd, 2009
4:14 pm

For all of those that say the Big 10 and the Pac 10 need to have a championship game. Please look at any teams schedule in the Pac 10. The champion of the league has played everyone in the league. Only one other conference has every team play each other and that is the Big East.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
4:19 pm

The Big Easy, that is mighty good company the PAC10 keeps.

longtimesecfan

April 23rd, 2009
4:32 pm

P O I—
1. UF scheduled Chas So on short notice when larger opponent
(I think it was USF) cancelled out at last minute (for
scheduling purposes) and UF had to take what was available.
2. UF is limited (same as UGA) in scheduling by having game
in Jax every year. Stadium bonds require 6 home games so
in year when dog game would be in G’ville UF is 1 short
so have to schedule someone (small team?) who will play there
without requiring return game at their place next year
when dog game counts as “away” game and we have 6 home
games w/o the “small timer”
3. Present system works well many years but not always. 4
team system little better but then others cry for 8 then
16 ad nauseum (sp?)but it is interesting discusson in april
except for m and others like him/her.

Michael G.

April 23rd, 2009
5:35 pm

Tony, here’s an idea. How about coming up with an original topic with something of substance; not these insane mythical scenerios that you attempt to dust off from last year and give to us as something “new.” Go have a couple more crown and cokes and try again.

AltamahaDawg

April 23rd, 2009
6:50 pm

I don’t think the progblem is that the NC is decided by votes. I think the problem is they know they aren’t voting on who is best at the time, they are voting as to who they want to see in the title game. And it leads to inconsistancies in voting protocal from year to year. Even a 4 team playoff helps because voter can shed the burden of deciding who gets to play for a NC. Sure they have to decide who the top 4, and who is left out at 5, but wouldnt that likely be more objective, based on football?

A good example is 2007. I never thought UGA should have been “picked” for the NC game. LSU had a better resume’. But voter had to arrange that, they had to suspend normal voting practices to make it work out. It’s very likely that if they were only voting for the BEST 4 teams in the country on the last week of the season, UGA might very well have been in it. Might not, but you can’t project 1-4 in THIS system based on who ended up where in THAT system of arranging an outcome.

H.T.

April 23rd, 2009
7:04 pm

how about a 16 team playoff and everyone else with a record of .500 or better have a bowl game.

bama12titles

April 23rd, 2009
7:07 pm

M,

You idiot. you can talk till you are blue in the face. They will never ever do a 16 team playoff ever. Why? 2 reasons. Number one it takes away from the bowls and all that bowl money. Secondly, everyone would have to scale back their schedule to 10 and not 11 regular season games. Since football and basketball to a lesser degree fund all the other sports losing that one extra game would cost athletic budgets bigtime money. Learn something before you run your freaking mouth you idiotic moron! It will never happen for what should be plain and obvious reasons. Only a total imbecile like you can’t understand that.

Atlanta Gator

April 23rd, 2009
9:02 pm

bama12*titles—-Harsh. Very harsh. And all true.

AltamahaDawg

April 23rd, 2009
9:34 pm

Personally I wouldn’t want to see a 16 team playoff, simply because you are stretching it out for a month or more.

Why not the plus one……let the bowls play out, who would become More important, and it seems like they would be better matchups, since it matter more if USC plays Illinois then. Let’s see how long conferences overlook a bad matchup to maintain bowl tie ins, when it cost them consideration. Still a final voting situation, but the debate and inevitable controversy that will confined to who is playing the best right now. Who deserves to be in the discussion, who will be in the top bowls, based on thier body of work over the season, is worked out in the bowl selections.

Otto

April 23rd, 2009
10:16 pm

Specious exercise. If they went to a 4-team playoff, it would become 8 before you know it and then 16… and there would still be schools complaining about being left-out.

Tails from The Swamp

April 24th, 2009
3:12 am

My point exactly! Next subject…

AltamahaDawg

April 24th, 2009
7:08 am

Why? Why would it have to escalate from 4 to 16. Who has the authority or power to force that?

Even so, the complaining of who got left out at #17 would last about 2 hours. Or we could complain about Auburn for 4 yrs.

[...] Writing in the AJC, Tony Barnhart ponders the four-team playoff BCS proposal. [...]

DirtyDawg

April 24th, 2009
9:19 am

I’m kinda with Tide4. Not just because no matter what system you end up with there will always be something to complain about – who didn’t get the 4th slot…the 8th…the 2nd – but also I’m against anything that would diminish the Bowl system. Maybe a ‘one-plus’, but as Tony pointed out that too has it’s drawbacks – and that doesn’t include the fact that in 2005, who would have played in the ‘one-plus NC, Texas and USC again? They were clearly the two best teams.

No, the Bowls have been good for College Football, good for the fans, good for TV and great for the communities that host ‘em. I mean with the Bowls some 25 teams get to end their season on an ‘up-note’…their fans and players get to go home happy…coaches are, pretty-much, assured of another year’s contract…communities have had the chance to promote themselves and, hopefully, make a little money at the same time…those same communities – particularly those with Bowl games that are tied to traditional festivals (e.g. Rose) wouldn’t go along with moving the dates (often by weeks) around every year just to accommodate a TV/playoff schedule…and with playoffs how many fans are going to be able to travel to more than one game (if even that)? That means many would hold out for the Championship game that may never come along with canceled plane reservations and hotels that would cost ‘em money for nothin’.

No, I’ll just settle for a little complaining about who shoulda’ and coulda’ with what we have now and look forward to the next season with renewed enthusiasm and determination. I mean, just what’s so special about some contrived playoff system? Any way you do it somebody’s gonna be pissed about being left out and since that seems to be the only reason you’re going through this upheaval of the current Bowl process, why bother?

[...] Writing in the AJC, Tony Barnhart ponders the four-team playoff BCS proposal. [...]

Otto

April 24th, 2009
9:22 am

We ahve an imposter with my previous post.

However schools are complaining about being left out of March Madness which is more a Spring Nap than March Madness as ratings have shown.

m

April 24th, 2009
9:40 am

A 16 team playoff is the answer. It only takes 4 weeks. It allows pretty much everyone with a real chance to play in a real tournament and crown a true champion. Just imagine if the Final Four in basketball was based on someone’s idiotic opinion. OR the 8 teams in the college world series in baseball was based on someone’s idiotic opinions. It would be LUDICROUS….just like it is in football now. Take opinions out of football. Let it be decided on the field. Let all deserving teams have a chance to prove it on the field….just like UTAH stomping alabammer…none of you fools predicted that. If we had had a playoff last year NEITHER floriduh or oklahomo would have made the championship. Get rid of this idiotic BCS NOW. The bowl games have all been rendered meaningless and attendence to bowl games has been dropping. And the reason is that they don’t mean anything anymore. History will show that college football has been stupid up to now by not having a true champion.

mythology101

May 3rd, 2009
2:40 pm

Morphing playoff system.

All teams that meet these requirements:

10 wins or more(former 1-AA teams count as 1/2 win)
2 loss or less(former 1-AA loss disqualifies)
Conference Champion
Not on probation

Take all teams that qualify and seed according to the polls
If there are:

2 teams – just play
3 teams – 2v3 then v1
4 teams – 1v4, 2v3 then winners play
5 teams – 4v5 winner take 4 seed place in 4 team playoff(see above)
6 teams – 3v6, 4v5, winners become 3 and 4 seeds respectively in 4 team playoff
7 teams – 1 seed gets bye in 1st round in 8 team format(see below)
8 teams – 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5, winners become 1, 2, 3, & 4 seeds respectively in 4 team playoff.
9 teams – 8v9, winner becomes 8 seed in 8 team playoff(see above)
10 teams – 10v7, 8v9, winners become 7 & 8 seeds respectively in 8 team playoff
11 teams – 11v6, 10v7, 8v9, winners become 6, 7, & 8 seeds respectively in 8 team playoff
1 team – change loss rule to 3 and proceed
0 teams – change lose rule to 3 and proceed

This wouldn’t happen but it would be fair and unbiased… somewhat. It would be fun too. Feel free to critique.