My question to you is why not make them prove that they are the best? If a #4 ranked team with one two loses can beat an undefeated BCS team then they are worthy of being in the NC game IMO. Plus, being undefeated (even in a BCS confrence) does not neccisarely mean you are the best (see Miami of a few years ago)
I think they proved they are the best by going undefeated. You don't have to agree with me, but if going undefeated in the regular season (as well as winning your conferece title game) is not enough . . . then why keep regular season win/loss totals at all? If I consider your post, you are actually saying that there is no way we can judge if a team is worthy by their regular season win/loss total. So, if we had a playoff that proves how un-important the regular season becomes with a playoff. At least that is my opinion. The "real" games will be played in Dec/Jan with a playoff. Because college football has around 120 teams, that means the best teams will not always get a chance to play each other . . . no matter what (even with a playoff). My questions were if you have two undefeated teams left over from the college football regular season, and those two teams came from BCS conferences, why do you have to go through yet another level of games to get a NC? And, do you guys really think if we have a playoff the human polls will go away? On the first question, I feel that if both teams come from BCS conferences with title games, it doesn't make sense to me for these teams to further prove they deserve the title by possibly having to play 2 or 3 loss teams. I also feel the polls are not going to go away no matter what, and there will always be fans upset with the rankings. I'm not likely to convert any playoff fans to my view on this issue, we just want different things out of college football. I support the bowls, and would continue to follow college football with a playoff . . . I enjoy debating the topic, but don't see why it has to be an either/or thing where fans seem upset that others don't share their excitment for a playoff. That somehow logic will sway my position. College football is not logical, it never has been. Let's face it, you guys who support the playoffs will continue to follow college football in the future without a playoff. I doubt many of us are following LSU because of our NC chances every year. There is something different about college football, and to me it's more attractive than the pro game (with it's playoffs, best players in the world, constant on field celebrations, attitude, and fancy million dollar stadiums).
yeah so if going undefeated proves you are the NC then what is the purpose of even having rankings. just give it to who goes undefeated and let everyone schedule 1-AA teams in ooc. Obviously the AP and BCS have major flaws and the only way to truly determine who is best is to match those teams head-up regardless who you 'feel' is proven. Many fewer games played in football than any other sport so by your analogy whoever wins the regular season in other sports are much more proven champions with no need for a playoff.
That's not exactly what I was saying. I'm not going to go into it all over again. But it would be just as easy to schedule those ooc games with a college playoff, to assure your seeding. As far as pro sports, a playoff should be between division winners . . . that way the regular season actually means something and you have a chance to see the regular seasons best team play for a league title. Why have wild cards, teams that do not win their conferences? For money.
Well if a playoff does come into existence and the format is that every conference gets one but only one team into the playoff than i vote we get the hell out of the SEC and join Conference USA. :hihi:
I don't understand how you think having a 4 team playoff is going to render the regular season meaningless. We are talking about being in the top 4 teams out of 117 teams. Does that mean that you can have three losses and make the Playoff? Um, no. The regular season will still be just as meaningful. As far as having only two undefeated teams and saying it's unfair, picture this for this year: USC and Wisconsin are the only two unbeatens. Auburn loses to Georgia and Oklahoma loses to somebody. Is Wisconsin hands down better than Oklahoma or Auburn? Wisconsin plays in a BCS conference, but the Big 10 is down this year and they don't even play Michigan. My point is if you are truly the best in the country, then these 1-loss teams shouldn't even be a worry.
Let me clear this up. I like the idea of a 4 team playoff (in years when 3 or more teams are undefeated, or you have a situation like last year). I believe if you have two clear #1 and #2 teams that are undefeated and come from BCS conferences . . . then you don't really need a playoff at all. You are right a 4 team playoff would not hurt the regular season or the bowls. However, as pointed out earlier by someone else, it would certainly expand to include more teams in time and then it would ruin the regular season. Either way, I think if a playoff has to happen, I like the 4 team format. My rant is on a 8, 10, or 16 team playoff formats . . . those formats basically turn college football into college basketball. I agree it is one of my weaker arguements, but that is just the way it is. We have BCS conferences, if you can go undefeated in a BCS conference you deserve a shot at the NC. I agree the SEC is the best conference in the country, it's also a curse for us in the SEC. Usually a team out of the SEC who gets to the NC has 1 loss, but it does happen. It's not like we get shut out every year, but that is part of playing in the toughest conference. It's also not like we have a string of PAC10 NCs either, it works both ways. SC might be getting a lot of special attention this year, but it won't last forever. And if they go undefeated they deserve a shot at the NC, if they do go undefeated that means they have lost 1 game in two years and only 3 in 3 years . . . that's not too bad. Anyway, the race is wide open this year . . . all 4 teams can still lose, with OK and AU having the greater chance for losses (that is the curse of being in a better conference). My other point is that this won't end with a playoff, the polls will still be around and there always be complaints of having to compete in a harder conference. And I don't think it is fair the Big10 and PAC10 get off easy without a conference title game . . . that needs to be addressed with or without a playoff.
umm TE junior, I have the attention span of a gnat. please reduce to 2000 words or less at least one in every 5 posts. only one person here has a 157+ IQ and it ain't me. :thumb: :thumb:
Me neither. I'm inclined to support a playoff for the very simple reason that if other sports can manage, including pro football, then College Football can make it happen. It just makes more sense to me, I guess. I really think that nearly all the ideas brought against it fall subordinate to the fact that the NFL makes it work, and no one has any problems. Not to mention, under a playoff, no undefeated team would get left out of the national championship, as Auburn may very well be if they win out; a surefire way to become the national champion is to be undefeated. Under the bowl system, that's not always the case.
