Legends poll should be added to BCS


I’ve got some advice for our friends at the BCS. In 2010 you will begin a new four-year contract with ESPN. If you’re going to keep the same format and selection process, and the contract says you will, how about an upgrade of the human polls that currently make up two-thirds of your formula?

Currently you have 59 coaches voting in the USA Today Coaches poll. We don’t have enough space, not even on the internet, for me to point out all of the inconsistencies in that poll. The coaches will readily admit that they don’t see very much college football other than their own team and their opponent each week.  Their poll reflects that. The ballots are also secret until the very last one. Secrecy should not be a part of the BCS process.

The Harris Interactive Poll voters are an interesting collection of former players, administrators and current media. There have been some interesting votes there are well.

The Associated Press media poll, the granddaddy of all polls, is the most credible of the group but decided, rightfully so, that it needed to get out of the BCS business to maintain that credibility.


Let’s face it. After USC finished No. 1 in both human polls in 2003 but did not get into the BCS championship, the powers that be changed the formula so that two thirds of it would rely on the human polls. The reality is that the two teams  at the top of the human polls at the end of the season are pretty much going to be the two teams who play for the national championship. The computer polls, which account for only one third of the formula, would have to be wildly different to change that outcome.

So if the human polls are going to mean that much, why not try to make them the best they can be? Why not call on people who know the game of football better than anybody? Why not get people who actually have time to watch a lot of football every week?

I present to you the Legends Poll. The poll is made up of 17 of the best former coaches in the country. The list includes Vince Dooley, Pat Dye, R.C. Slocum, Terry Donahue,  John Robinson, John Cooper, and R.C. Slocum, just to name a few.


Each coach is assigned a couple of teams to follow closely and they receive DVDs of many games from around the country. After studying the video, the coaches meet on a conference call to discuss those teams in great detail. Then collectively they file their ballots and release their poll. All ballots are public. The results are posted each week by our friends at The Sporting News.



I had the opportunity to listen in on the conference call this week. Trust me when I tell you that these guys know their stuff.

“It’s an interesting process and a very thorough process,” said Dooley, the Hall of Fame coach from Georgia. “A coach looks at video with a careful eye. By the time we finish our discussion, we feel like we’ve given all the teams a very honest assessment.”

The Legends poll began several years ago under the title of the Master Coaches Survey. Andy Curtin, who is the administrator of the poll, has been lobbying the BCS to include the poll in its formula.

“These coaches know the game better than anybody and they have the time and the skill to really dig deep and analyze these teams,” said Curtin. “We’ve been very clear. We believe they should be a part of the BCS process.”


As the BCS moves forward into the next four-year cycle, I’m suggesting this is something the conference commissioners should consider.  What would be wrong with adding a fourth element to the formula? Collectively, these men have 369 years of head coaching experience. Wouldn’t it make sense to take advantage of that experience?  It seems to me that it is an untapped resource that would help the credibility of a process that still remains the subject of much debate and scorn among college football fans.


Please follow me on Twitter:


283 comments Add your comment


November 17th, 2009
2:09 pm

Instead of looking for things to add to the BCS, shouldn’t we be looking for things to take away from it? Like everything?


November 17th, 2009
2:10 pm

and you don’t think the fiesta bowl would have lousy ratings if it had tcu and boise in it? football leads big because it took over baseball as americas passion and pasttime years ago. basketball is nice in between football season and you must have never worked in an office because the bracket and pools that you enter are about as fun as you can get along with the slate of games beginning at noon thursday and friday. i use to like the bowls. now they suck. who really wactched bama utah last year? now if that game was a second round playoff, it would mean something. and finally, i’ve disputed all the nay sayers on here so far. bama would not roll over against their rival with a playoff. it would still be fierce. and for the ga fans. imagine this…you’re still in it for the top 16. if you beat uk and gt, there’s still a chance you could sneak into the 16th spot. now you just wait and ponder to see if you go to shreveport or memphis or wherever. so much fun!!!


November 17th, 2009
2:10 pm

Tide, you have obviously NOT watched TCU. If you had, you wouldn’t be talking about them as a “little underdog team”.

Do your own research: Check out TCU’s strength of schedule.

To counter another of your points: Bama playing a “marquee” name OOC is NOT the same as playing a “quality” OOC game. Last year, you played Clemson…. a team that had perhaps the worst (i.e. young) 3rd worst OL in the ACC. Don’t take my word for it: Look it up & see what Clemson did after Bama smoked ‘em.

Penn State coming up? Not impressed. PSU had 8 (not a typo; EIGHT!!!) home games this year. Beat powerhouse OOC opponents like …. EASTERN (not to be confused with Southern!) Illinois, Akron, Syracuse, and Temple. LOST TWO HOME GAMES IN conference. Call them “mediocre” but do NOT call them “quality”.

The point is that if you want to exclude quality teams … like TCU … , then let’s ALL quit pretending! You don’t WANT them to be allowed to play for a Championship, so why bother with the charade? FWIW, TCU is MUCH BETTER than Utah was last year. Oh, … and what did Utah do in their bowl game?

Speaking of “marquee” vs. “quality”, go look at Sagarin Ratings of Schedules for Texas vs. TCU. Tell me who’s more deserving.

Anyway, we agree up to a point: Just go play UF and we’ll give you the BCS Crown in December. Texas can’t compete anyway … they don’t have SEC speed. ;-) Fans from LSU and Tenn will enjoy it to, since they were 3 & 4 in the SEC.

But let the other 116 teams defect to FCS football. Ya’ll have fun in the BCS – at least you won’t have to play with the “little” teams like TCU.



November 17th, 2009
2:16 pm

OTTO just showed his hand. He’s not in favor of a playoff because PresBO has mentioned it and he doesn’t like presbo. I’m not a fan of BO either, but that doesn’t mean I want college football to continue with this hideous way it crowns it’s champion.

Joe Bob Thibodaux

November 17th, 2009
2:18 pm

Why not let the SEC refs decide who is champion?


November 17th, 2009
2:21 pm

Auburn was left out because of a weak schedule in 04.We’ll just have to agree to disagree.I don’t want college football to be like the NFL or college basketball.I don’t think the BCS is perfect either I think it could be improved but just can’t see how a playoff would fix it without ruining college football.

C tha 1

November 17th, 2009
2:23 pm

Tide what are you talking about!? Utah beat Alabama’s butt last year remember? Wait for it….a little school beat a mighty, mighty SEC team. By the way I love the SEC, but I realize that a playoff system is the only tried and true way to determine a champion. Its simple.

Delbert D.

November 17th, 2009
2:25 pm

It was more interesting before the BCS. Looks like the existence of the BCS has spawned corruption on an unprecedented scale.


November 17th, 2009
2:26 pm

Uhm actually I work in a cube farm. We had a NFL pool (last year nothing this year) but nothing on Basketball. As I said it has faded into the past. Monday and Friday mornings people gather and talk about the games during Football season but hardly a whisper on the Tournament.

Only the UGA fans would be watching UGA play for hopes of getting in at 16, much like Auburn basketball last year. What a draw that was. However, everyone in the bar was suddenly watching Pitt upset WVU.

Friday after Thanksgiving in a prime spot Bama will play Auburn and fans across the country will watch in hopes that Auburn knocks off Bama. Why? so their team (such as TCU) can sneak into a BCS title game. Bama and Auburn signed a multi year TV deal for the Friday game.

Which will generate more viewers Auburn fans watching in hopes of making the top 16 or TCU, Boise St, Cincy, etc fans hoping that they can get into a BCS title game? I vote the one that impacts more teams.

The other teams would not be hoping Bama gets knocked off in a playoff because Bama would still be in the Top 10 and Auburn would still have an outside shot to get in and even less to win it all.

The fans have spoken with what they say and they have voted on what they watch. They watch and debate the BCS system year round and it is making millions more than the other sports despite what they say with their voice.


November 17th, 2009
2:32 pm

Straight Jacket,

My point is Saban desires to play the kindof OOC marquee teams you are talking about the problem is scheduling them but the desire is there he has not been at Bama very long.I know TCU is a good football team however I still do not believe they would have success going up against big named schools for the NC.Now in a bowl game like we have now I could see them upsetting some top big named team.I still do not believe Utah would’ve beat Bama had that been the NC game.Andre Smith would’nt have left and Bama would’ve had no destractions to deal with.


November 17th, 2009
2:45 pm

Let’s face it, the BCS is BS. 6 MAJOR conference champs, plus next 2 best at large…8 team playoff. MAKE IT HAPPEN….


November 17th, 2009
2:48 pm

Tony, you’ve got to be kidding. The last thing I’d want is this to be influenced by a couple of ethics challenged crooks like Vince Dooley and Pat Dye. Please, go away.


November 17th, 2009
2:54 pm

OK Tide, counter this point for me (maybe we can agree on SOMETHING here):

If you want to exclude the “little” teams like TCU, why are we all pretending like they even have a CHANCE at the BCS Championship? Many of the “powers-that-be” don’t WANT them either, so why are they even allow to play “big boy” football? So,… let’s ELIMINATE the teams that DON’T GET FAIR TREATMENT, and LIMIT THE BCS to the “marquee” teams (remember, quality doesn’t matter, ONLY “big” teams can play “big boy” football!).

So, … we can AGREE that means that TCU, Boise, Cincy, can all just go away. Don’t go away mad, … just go away. You’re school isn’t “big” enough.

Texas is “BIG”,… but have you seen that conference this year? Seen their OOC schedule? Are Bama fans going to be full of “TIDE PRIDE” when they stomp an inferior Texas team? YES!!! And why? Because TEXAS is a “MARQUEE” Team! A “BIG” Team! Nevermind that TCU would beat ‘em.

Back to my original point: Can you and I agree that we should just expel the “little” teams that get in the way of the BCS Championship? Good. Now, besides TCU, Boise, and Cincy, who else we gonna kick out? I’ll add South Carolina (like,… 5 bowl games in their ENTIRE history), Kentucky (we ain’t takin’ basketball), the entire Big East, Washington State, Duke, Northwestern, and ALL NON-BCS conferences.

Tide, I’m betting you’ll add: the Big 12 North, the whole ACC (except VPI&SU & Clemson, ’cause Bama played ‘em), and about 16 Pac 10 and Big 10 teams.

That leaves us with … well,…. about …. 4 teams: Bama, UF, LSU, and Tennessee.

Seriously, just KICK OUT the teams that you DON’T WANT to give an objective chance to, and how many DO you have left?

If my team (GT) can’t get a fair, objective shot from the smoke-filled room full of politicians at SEcSPiN, then I’d like to be in the group of teams that determines an OBJECTIVE champion … on the field.

Tide, HOW MANY TEAMS SHOULD get a “FAIR” , OBJECTIVE shot at the BCS TItle? AND WHICH teams ARE they? Do you decide NOW that a team won’t be GOOD enough next year? Like, … say,,… Utah? Should we go ahead and decide that they shouldn’t be allowed to compete next year? I mean, … Just because they were number 2 last year, doesn’t mean squat for next year, right?

Man, just seems un-American to me. Let’s stifle competition – only certain teams are allowed to compete for the Championship. Sheesh….



November 17th, 2009
2:59 pm

There will be a playoff. Something this polluted with this much money riding on its interity has got to be fixed. This is like south Georgia politics, it can’t last forever and when it disappears thousands of the very people who made it so crooked will be acting like it was their idea to end it. Like all those Democrats that jumped over to the Republican side when their gig was up with the other machine.

Top Dawg

November 17th, 2009
3:05 pm

I present to you … PLAYOFFS!!!! Anything short of playoffs is a different way of doing it the wrong way!!!

Christian Dior Dogg

November 17th, 2009
3:07 pm

A panel of experts ranking the teams?

Sounds like figure skating.

A real sport needs a playoff.


November 17th, 2009
3:18 pm

You are right on. And if GT had beaten Miami and won out, they would still not get into the game. That’s how pathetic the BcS is. It may work out okay once every ten years.

TLH Gator

November 17th, 2009
3:30 pm

Tony Barnhardt BCS column: blah blah, tradition, blah blah, the bowls have been good for college football, blah blah, status quo, blah blah.


We want a 16 team playoff open to all members of Division 1A (not FBS—), selected by a diverse committee in an open process and accountable to the member schools. Seed the teams. First round games on campus, then allow cities to bid on further rounds.

College football deserves an exciting postseason worthy of the great game that it is and not an exhibition season that glorifies mediocrity and established power structures.


November 17th, 2009
3:44 pm

SJ – Texas is “BIG”,… but have you seen that conference this year? Seen their OOC schedule? Are Bama fans going to be full of “TIDE PRIDE” when they stomp an inferior Texas team? YES!!! And why? Because TEXAS is a “MARQUEE” Team! A “BIG” Team! Nevermind that TCU would beat ‘em.

reply – Doubtful especially if TCU played the full Big 12 schedule.

SJ – If my team (GT) can’t get a fair, objective shot from the smoke-filled room full of politicians at SEcSPiN, then I’d like to be in the group of teams that determines an OBJECTIVE champion … on the field.

reply – Last time GT was talking like that they left the SEC. That worked out well….

SJ – Man, just seems un-American to me. Let’s stifle competition – only certain teams are allowed to compete for the Championship. Sheesh….

reply – actually it is. Rail and Oil Industry early in the Century. The Big 3 Auto Makers, Microsoft now. Only 2 political parties with any real power. The big teams are even taking over the IRL, NASCAR, and NHRA. Baseball? what is more American than the World Series? How many have the Yankees won?


November 17th, 2009
3:46 pm

I actually see where a playoff could hurt College Football. EX. If the playoff was made up of teams that win their conference championship, and hypothetically say its in play this year. Why would GT play one of its starters in two weeks against UGA. The UGA game would mean nothing to Ga. Tech this year since they clinched a spot in the ACC championship and the winner of that game goes to the “playoffs”. Just like in the NFL at the end of the regular season, alot of teams that are in the playoffs sit their starters. All those in state rival games in College Football suffer, and you have 2nd /third team players playing in those games cause they will mean nothing on a national scale.


November 17th, 2009
3:57 pm

WodstockGT, Good points. T

Also the 2 at large teams. Would you really risk yoru starting QB and RB against an OOC game. If not, why schedule someone like TCU, Utah, or Boise?

If you really want a playoff IMO top 6 after the traditionals bowls including BCS bowl selected much as they were before the BCS (traditional old Conf tie ins)

The top 2 get a 1 week bye. It keeps Texas, Bama, and UF playing 100% at the end of the season.

3 plays 6, and 4 plays 5. The winners play the 1st and 2nd teams leading up to a title game.

Playoff games are played at current BCS bowls.

Downside, The playoff still ruins the bowls for the mid level BCS teams, and mid majors.

Result, as with any CFB playoff the rich get richer


November 17th, 2009
4:07 pm

Despite what others are saying, I can’t wait for the bowl season. Even the non National Championship games are exciting cause it is an opportunity to see differen’t conferences play each other and how they stack up. If any changes should occur in the near future it would be maybe adding 1 game to the BCS system as the National Championship game… maybe.


November 17th, 2009
4:09 pm

WoodstockGT, again I agree. I even take the week off after Christmas (not before) to watch them.


November 17th, 2009
4:12 pm

It’s not a good point because I nor anyone would want a playoff where you get in by just winning your conference championship. It would be based on seedings(1-16) or even (1-8) not winning a conference and thus making the uga game just as important as it has always been.


November 17th, 2009
4:15 pm

And if you are a high seed like bama, fla, texas and gt, you want to win that rivalry game even more to maintain home field. It’s not that complicated. Those saying the 6 conf champ and plus 2 idea is horrible and stupid.

Roll Tider

November 17th, 2009
4:19 pm

They already play the NC game one week later. Just seed the top 4 New Years’s weekend, have the winners play for the NC, and be done with it.

You’d more than likely end up with a Fla-Bama rematch in the 1/4 game as whoever loses wouldn’t fall any further than that (possible that Boise or GT could slide in there) then UT-TCU in the 2/3 game. Guess what you end up with? Florida or Bama vs. Texas. Hate to say it ’cause I don’t like it but the thing is working this year. You have three teams that are clearly ahead of the pack, with two of them playing a national semifinal to get in.


November 17th, 2009
4:22 pm

I have a better idea. Get rid of the whole BCS BS. Playoffs is what is demanded. I hope that there are about 5 undefeated teams…then what….so people that vote determines that a TCU does not have a chance to win the national championship. Every fan in America wants this. It’s BS.


November 17th, 2009
4:25 pm

Another tenn player in trouble for shoplifting.


November 17th, 2009
4:32 pm

Roll Tider…how can you say that Florida, Bama, and Texas “are clearly ahead of the pack”. You do not know this and no one else does. Utah killed Bama last year. Who’s to say that TCU is not the best team but we will never know. Very sad to me as a fan…the underdog has no shot…and this is not the American way. Blow the damn thing up.


November 17th, 2009
4:38 pm

Otto, (& Tide),

We can talk antitrust law and monopolies on a different forum. I have good training on antitrust law.

But THIS forum is about COLLEGE FOOTBALL, for crying out loud!

I’m not asking this as a rhetorical question; I’d REALLY like to know your view:

WHICH TEAMS will be allowed to compete objectively and fairly for the BCS Championship?

and WHICH TEAMS will NOT be allowed to compete objectively and fairly?

If I can get a CLEAR answer from you on these two questions, then I can be persuaded to your view of the BCS system, with just a tweak or two.

Just KICK OUT the teams that aren’t allowed the level playing field, and put them in Division I of FCS. There, these “little teams” can use the long-time, traditional bowl system as quarter-final and semi-final game sites for a championship playoff of the “little” teams.

The BCS can keep their system, and it will be a Champion of the “big” teams, without the charade of pretending the little teams were even in the mix. Of course, I don’t know why BCS (”big boy”) teams would want to play powerhouses like UTC (see Bama schedule) & Charleston Southern (see UF schedule) during the regular season, but that’s an argument for another day.

So, convince me at other to see this your way: Tell me which teams are allowed to compete for BCS, and which are not?

Again, NOT a rhetorical question… I really want to know if we can agree on this…..



November 17th, 2009
4:41 pm

Like SJ said, these guys otto and tide only look at about 5-6 teams in the entire nation and consider them worthy of a nat champ. They like it the way it is cause every decade or so, they can play in the nat champ 2-3 times. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the teams do. The only ones that matter are this

Fla, Bama..just recently…Texas, Ok, Usc, Ohio St, Penn St

Even when their teams get bitch slapped by the utahs and boises, they still say they aren’t worthy. they are called Idiots for a reason.


November 17th, 2009
4:47 pm

Otto, a few more questions:

Do you think Bama fans were “happy” to be at the Sugar Bowl last year?
Do you think USC was “excited” to be at the Rose Bowl (when they didn’t make the BCS Championship Game?)

When these GREAT bowls are de-valued to “consolation prizes” to teams that didn’t get to the ultimate game, THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG with the system!

And after seeing both TCU & Texas play a few times now, I just disagree on who would win that game. I believe TCU would win, and some objective elements of Sagarin and strength of schedule would agree with me. Of course, the very question of who is better – Texas or TCU – is just extra evidence for the case of having an 8 team playoff.



November 17th, 2009
4:50 pm

I don’t buy it Tony, these guys are somewhat biased as well……8 or 16 team playoff via the current multi-tier bowl structure is the way to go…..

Tony is smokin crack

November 17th, 2009
4:56 pm

Tony ….you have lost your mind …….AP Poll most credible ????? Are u kidding me…..Legends poll ….NO …let the kids play for a championship instead of having so called czars annointing a champ ….lay off the crack Tony …the whiskey too


November 17th, 2009
5:01 pm

No! It’s another excuse to delay playoffs. Why don’t you writers devote your typing to reasoning out that the BCS is doomed instead of proposing more angst polls to disagree with ? Because the BCS(in all of its unfairness, stupidity and incongruity) is great fodder for your press and the only unfairness in a 16-game playoff would involve the last 4 selected in inverted fairness to the inverted order. Let’s face it- The BCS is good for writers trying to get their favorite ,though possibly undeserving, team in the mix. The top 12-14 would be cut and dried by the pollsters leading up to the end of the season and the remaining places will have less broohaha from the fans on selection. There would be prejudice factor diminishment for the last 2-4 teams since at that lower level it would be impossible for a group to sway evidentiary statistics for their team. The plain fact is that writers would have much less to write about and that is why they publish articles favoring the BCS while ignoring polls that run 7-3 pro playoff. ESPN was especially pro BCS in their articles last year. Now they will be in bed with them and joined at the hip.

No, Tony. No more gadgets and weasel groups to enhance the status quo. Let the Legends decide the 16-team playoff and give their reasoning for each team’s strength at the end of the year. Pick the teams from bowl game winners/losers. Keep the bowls and allow the winners of the top 5 bowls be paired with 3 teams selected from other top bowl winners and losers. That leaves a 3-game playoff for #1 before the Super bowl is played. You can vary this scenario with a bowl loser’s bracket playoff of 4 teams to select 2(or 1) of the last 3 teams(i.e., The loser of the top bowl matchup could still prove themselves and not be out of it because they drew the top team in the country). You could also rank AFTER the bowls and let #1 play #16, #2 play #15, etc..


November 17th, 2009
5:09 pm

Any team getting to a playoff most go through a conference championship to be eligible.


November 17th, 2009
5:11 pm

The last posting is to solicit comment about the playoffs as Tony has solicited for the BCS.


November 17th, 2009
5:11 pm

I predict that all the undefeated teams that will get screwed over this year, will help push Congress to make College Football change to being a relative sport with a real postseason.
I can really see how the BCS is a antitrust issue….. if teams have relative records… they should be given the same chance. End of story!
College football is really sad…. no postseason, Just so a bunch of .500 schools can go to some meaningless exhibition called a bowl, and feel like they accomplished something!

Welcome to Pee Wee football… where all the little kids get a trophy so they feel special.
Wake me up when the NFL playoffs start!

Whopper Dawg

November 17th, 2009
5:11 pm

Yeah, that will fix it. Add more opinion to a process already decided by opinion. Hey, let’s do this, let’s play each other to decide it. Then the Legends can watch some games rather than film, and you, Mr. Barnhart, can report the scores and the teams will decide it. How about that.


November 17th, 2009
6:08 pm

This would certainly make for a more studied and objective evaluation than the computers. Computers don’t coach or play football and know nothing about intensity of an annual rivalry.

One other suggestion would be to mandate (tweak) the coaches’ poll by not allowing any one to vote for a one loss team over an undefeated team. Simple philosophy here! Reward success on the field of play. Each week is part of a double elimination tournament. Lose two, you’re out ( and that goes for LSU, OhioSt and USC) Reward the Wins, not the so called style points and losses. No two loss team can be ranked ahead of a one loss team. Vote for them and your vote is invalidated. No 3 loss team can be ranked ahead of a 2 loss team, 1 loss team or undefeated team. It’s simple. Win and move up in the polls. Lose and go to the back of the line!

This is even better than the BCS polls, which care only about the top two or three teams, which subconsciously has had a negative effect on the officiating. Take the BCS out of it … put in the AP UPI with new aforementioned regulations and the Legends poll. That would make for a better season and protect the BOWLS in the process.

What you think?


November 17th, 2009
6:43 pm

WOW Another Tennessee player arrested, this time for shoplifting. All of this stuff has happened just as kiffin was bragging about his discipline and “clean” program…Instant Karma!!!!!!!!!!

Joe Bob Thibodaux

November 17th, 2009
7:01 pm

What I see developing in this section of the blog is a bunch of people
building pyramids and no true champion.
The swine flu or the SEC refs could determine the whole thing.
And think of this, a 16 team bracket would only require 4 games to eliminate all but one.
Now, is the 16 team bracket picked by some pyramid or are there
some brackets this fit them. Lets see, 16 deserving to be number one.
OK, lets have a football lottery and call it a championship.

Coach O

November 17th, 2009
7:14 pm

You whiners (yes Thomas, that includes you) are pathetic. First you say that you want a playoff system in order to take the “opinion” out of the National Championship. Then you start to blather about conference champions, seeding and strength of schedule.

If you really want to eliminate opinion polling, then propose a system that actually eliminates it. Instead, you inadvertently admit that you recognize the validity of the opinion polls — you just aren’t happy with the rendered opinion of your particular favorite team.

To eliminate opinion as a factor, each game must be treated as if it is equal to every other game. that is what a computer poll does if it isn’t weighted by the opinions of the programmer. All 120 teams start the season tied for first place. As the season progresses, only wins and losses on the field of play factors into changing the standings. “Strength of schedule” is indeterminate until after the games have all been played.

Under this unbiased scenario, all undefeated teams are tied for first place. All one-loss teams are tied for second place. All two loss teams are tied for third place. Any team that has three or more losses is effectively tied for last place. No team that looses 25% or more of their regular season games has any business participating in a post-season championship tournament — even if they are the best team in their “conference”.

This is what you want if you are actually concerned about biased opinions spoiling the process. You could choose whichever playoff format that pleases you to strike teams from this pool of qualified contenders. The one team left standing would have won the championship on the field of play and there is no way that you could assert that they were awarded the championship due to biased opinion.

Would that be a better process? Hell no… We all KNOW that a win over USC, LSU, Ohio State or Oregon is more valuable than a win over Akron, Duke or FIU. You guys don’t really have a problem with the polls — you just have a problem with not being Number One in the polls.

It takes decades to build a premiere football program that deserves to be at the top of the polls. Having one or two undefeated seasons against lower level teams just doesn’t cut it. Is that fair? Hell no… But then, I challenge you to find anything in life that is perfectly fair. The TCU’s and Boise State’s of the world should be proud of their accomplishments — but they shouldn’t be playing for a National Championship until they’ve payed their dues just like the teams that do play for the Championship.

If you don’t like it, then form your own league and determine the champion any way that pleases you. Otherwise, just shut up with the whining and keep up the winning. You’ll get your shot in due time — but not before then.

Joe Bob Thibodaux

November 17th, 2009
7:24 pm

Coach O: I agree with you. Well written.

doug cupp

November 17th, 2009
7:45 pm


November 17th, 2009
7:45 pm

Oh for craps sake, just have scrap the BCS and get a playoff like the rest of the world. You can get the best, most informed people voting and they’re still just voicing their opinion. No one knows which of the top 6 teams is the “best”. I bet you couldn’t get most people to even agree on a definition of what the “best” team is. Until EVERY team can play their way into the championship game, which they obviously can’t do now, the title of College Football – FBS Division National Champion isn’t much better than an Oscar or an Emmy award.

Delbert D.

November 17th, 2009
7:49 pm

The system posted at 7:14 might effectively end all out-of-conference rivalries like Georgia-Georgia Tech, USC -Notre Dame and even Air Force vs. the other service academies since the first rule is to go undefeated. There would be a big scramble for patsy opponents. Hmmm….that’s UF’s system plan this year.

Joe Bob Thibodaux

November 17th, 2009
7:53 pm

skitzo, I think you will like GOLF. It has the format you like.

Coach O

November 17th, 2009
8:00 pm

Unbiased Poll of NCAA FBS Football Teams
as of 11-17-2009

1st Place:

Boise State

2nd Place:

Georgia Tech

3rd Place:

Brigham Young
Central Michigan
Ohio State
Oklahoma State
Penn State

That’s 20 teams. It’ll probably be closer to 16 in a couple of weeks. How would you match them up for your “Non-Mythical National Championship” playoff?


November 17th, 2009
8:00 pm

How about a 12 team playoff? The division winner from each of the 11 FBS conferences plus one wildcard team (we’ll let people vote for that one for old times sake). The independent teams would have to get themselves in a conference like everybody else to get a chance to play themselves into the playoffs or hope to get voted in. Top 4 ranked teams (using existing system, or a board room full of experts like the basketball tournment) get a bye in Round 1.

This way every FBS team is guaranteed a chance to play themselves in the the National Championship game. And, most every game will still matter. You can’t lose too many games and still win the conference championship.