Yeah, UGA won the battle with LSU but lost the war. Rally cry at UGA re LSU: "One out of three ain't bad"
UAT beating Auburn is certainly possible, but I don't think it's very likely. UAT is down to their 2nd and 3rd string players at most skill positions at this point....2 QB's and at least 2 RB's are pretty much out for the year. UGA is easily the more competitive of the two at this point.
I don't want a playoff. The college bowl system is a tradition and I want it left the way that it is. The BCS needs to change though. This offseason they changed for the worse by taking out the strength of schedule formula. If I could run the BCS how much smoother it would be!
SOS, margin of victory, and a conference championship requirement (for participants in the NC game) would all improve the BCS. But about SOS, don't factor that in until the rankings come out on the Sunday after the season is over. Could you imagine the excitement that would then surround the BCS Selection Show on ABC? The ratings would go through the roof, plus it would prevent other bowls from issueing invitations prematurely, much like the Citrus Bowl did with Florida last year, leaving Tennessee with only the Peach Bowl (and a better record than UF).
I say Auburn takes down UGA. Georgia planned their entire season for the LSU game. They used all their "secret weapons" and totally exposed what their offense was capable of. LSU took out Florida, Miss St. took out Florida, if only Bama could've taken out Tenn.....as much as I hate to say it "Go Auburn!" (but I'm not doing the whole "War Eagle" thing. Geaux West!
I agree with you. But let me throw this out there. A lot of fans are waiting for the perfect storm kind of season, one where several teams go undefeated. The uni presidents control the bowls (at least they are the reason we have the bowls). If you have a playoff only 16 schools benifit. With bowls 56 schools benifit. And that is why college football will never have a playoff, not unless someone completely restructures Div1 football. I don't think uni presidents will decide to change the system to appease ESPN and fans (no matter how many teams finish undefeated), when the bowl system has worked just fine (some schools are able to get around 100,000 to a game . . . for schools that wouldn't make the playoffs). In fact, many feel college football is more popular than the NFL (all season long) because of the way the regular season is more important in college (that and attendance numnbers). Anyway, why would schools want to take away bowls (or lessen their effect) by opening up a playoff to at most 16 schools? Those 16 schools would make a nice chunk of money from a playoff, but what about all the other schools? And if you think polls are biased now, just wait and see what the polls will look like with a playoff. Does anyone feel a two loss PAC 10 school would get left out for a 3 loss SEC school? As it is now more schools get to be part of the post season and make money. And that is what we are really talking about here . . . money. Would a playoff generate a ton of money? You bet, but it wouldn't be spread around like it is for the bowls. A playoff in the long run would end football at several schools, since it wouldn't pay off to compete. Surely there are arguements for the other side, this is just one side. And I want to make clear it is just my opinion. I'm not a paid member of the NCAA and my opinions don't mean a damn thing. But it is a free board and I wanted to share my thoughts. If a playoff was created, I would follow college football the same as I always have . . . I just tend to support bowls, if I want a playoff I watch the NFL. But I don't see uni presidents turning down the bowls in favor of a playoff no matter how fair it is to decide it on the field since more schools make money off bowls.
It would not be THAT difficult to insitute a D-1 playoff system AND keep the bowl system intact. This would keep the benefits there for all 56 schools and add MORE benefits through an extra game or two.
It would be easy to do, but how do you do it and keep the level of interest up for the other bowls as well as the regular season. Already since the BCS was created those 2nd tier bowls have lost some interest with the casual college football fan. But you are correct, it would be easy to make the system work, you just wouldn't be able to generate enough money to make it worth it for the other schools. For example why should any school in a nonBCS conference compete when they know there chances of making a playoff are just as rare as making the BCS? The problem for playoff fans are the university presidents. They are not going to want to give up 1 cent of money to appease ESPN and fans. Because no matter what, once you create a playoff you take the allure of the bowls away. You can't get around that. Even today most find all those bowls silly, yet they keep adding more. Why? Schools, and plenty of them, make more money from that system. These are kids not pros who can only play a limited amount of games (compared to basketball and baseball), and when you have 120 teams competing, it's best to allow as many of those teams (and players) as possible to walk off the field with a trophy that means a little something. The last couple of days I have been looking at LSU's season records through the years and I've noticed that if there were a 16 team playoff, LSU would have only made the playoffs three times in the last 17 years (taking final rankings into account). If it were a 4 team playoff, then we would have 1 playoff chance in almost 2 decades. Look at what the NCAA basketball tourney has done to regular season college basketball. But I will say this, you are right . . . on paper it is very easy to create a system that uses both the playoff format and the bowls. It just doesn't translate into real money for the schools left out of the playoffs. Who is going to watch the "fill in name here" bowl if they can watch week 1 of the playoffs. The casual fan will tune into the playoffs every time over the lesser bowls. The only thing I think can work would be a conditional 4 team playoff if the records of those teams set that up. For example . . . do you need a playoff if the top two teams are both undefeated or have greater records than all the other teams? Of course, if you have 4 undefeated teams or 4 one loss teams then it fits into the 4 team playoff perfectly. There just isn't a perfect system that will keep the integrity of the regular season intact, while allowing fans the chance to enjoy a playoff, and have as many teams walk off the field with a trophy that means something. I could be wrong but I really feel once you add a playoff to college football the regular season will not ever be the same. I just don't want to see college football turn into college basketball. And that is the biggest reason as to why I support the bowls and system we have now.
Right now, and historically, who is really interested in a bowl game other than fans of each respective aprticipating team, hardcors football fans, fans in the bowl's local community, and some fans from those teams' conferences? These people will still be interested regardless. In reading the rest of your comments. It is indeed all about money and sharing the profits amogst participating schools and their conferences. Even under the BCS, steps have been made to allow for the opportunity to have non-BCS conference teams participate in the upper echelon of bowls. Right now, if they are in the top 6 of the BCS, they make it. Next year with the addition of the extra BCS bowl (or is it the following year), they will have an even better opportunity. Since you speak of interest and keeping it up throughout the season. With the current system as it is, a couple of losses and your team is all but done for when it comes to a championship. Does that mean that interest is any less? Do you as a LSU fan care less about LSU football because they have two losses now? Heck no. The interest will always be there. On the other hand would you be more excited though knowing that LSU had a realistic chance of making it into the playoffs and winning it all, even with two losses right now? I know I would. If THIS: USC - undefeated Oklahoma - undefefeated Miami - Undefeated Barners - Undefeated Wisconsin - Undefeated Utah - Undefeated Boise State - Undefeated .... If that does happen, would anyone other than those associated with BCS #1 and BCS #2 feel that the national champion was determined on the field?
LSUGradin99, you bring up excellent points. But remember, it's been 60 years since a team with 2 losses has won a MNC. You bring up good points as well. And of course I wouldn't lose interest in LSU, heck we both have sat through some miserable seasons yet continued going to the games. So I agree that is one of my weaker points in the overall arguement. But it should be noted that never in the history of college football have 7 teams gone undefeaed. We won't settle this here in this thread. People being paid millions haven't figured it out and the university presidents won't let them. No matter what system is used, it will never be fair for all 120 teams. That is why I am for opening up the BCS conferences, turning them into super conferences, and then using a playoff. I won't stop following college football if there is a playoff, I just don't want to see 2, 3, and 4 loss teams becoming NC's. That isn't college football to me. However, to others that is a perfectly fine outcome. I don't think anyone will create something that will appease both sides. There will always be bowl fans and playoff fans. Maybe this season several teams will finish undefeated. But I think something else will happen. I think upsets will take care of some of these undefeated teams (like it has always happened in the past) and by the end of the season we will have a clear 1 and 2 ranked teams (probably with several 1 loss teams). If not, then maybe something will happen. But I know you playoff fans are not going to leave college football if the bowls are still around next season with yet another revamped BCS . . . and the same goes for us bowl fans if things change. It wasn't that long ago people were worried 9 teams could finish undefeated. I think the undefeated pack will thin out before the season ends. That's just how college football works. You know, several nonBCS teams have gone undefeated before they got screwed . . . for some reason no one ever really cared. When Tulane went undefeated they didn't even get any kind of national coverage (or TV games other than the Lib bowl) same goes for Marshall. So the system is not fair. In fact, if Utah goes undefeated there is a great shot for other BCS conference teams (with several losses) to pass them in the polls and shut them out of the big bowls.
