There are so many college teams that there will always be a controversy even with an 8 team playoff. Who should those 8 teams be? Just look at March madness. There is a ton of second guessing going on with 64 teams in the playoffs. :shock: Too many teams that do not play equal schedules. I don't think an adequate playoff system can be decided. Now if some of the bowls would relinquish their tie ins and match decent teams (hint hint Rose bowl) then at least the bowl games would be better.
Here's the deal - there is no perfect system out there. And no system is going to please everybody. If we take those two statements as true, then we're left with not having a system at all (where there was no attempt to match #1 vs. #2), sticking with the current system that does match up #1 vs. #2, or figuring out if the system can be modified to make it better. I'm going to speak in generalities now - it is a given that there are some who don't agree with everything below: The pre-BCS system stunk - #1 Big Ten team went to the Rose Bowl, #2 SEC team went to the Sugar Bowl. The 2-team BCS system is better than before, but still has flaws whenever there are not exactly 2 teams that stand out above the rest. A 4-team BCS system would, in years when there are not exactly 2 teams that stand out, allow more teams into the championship picture. In many years (2003 and 2004, for example) 4 teams would be "enough" to allow all deserving teams. A 6-team system would be helpful in some years when even 4 teams aren't necessarily enough. This past year is considered one of those years. It has the added benefit of having a bye week for the top 2 teams, giving a big incentive for teams at the top of the rankings to keep winning. An 8-team system could be helpful, especially if to get a larger playoff instituted all of the current so-called BCS conferences mandated that their champions made it into the playoff system. That would allow 2 "at-large" teams, which would let a highly-ranked non-BCS team or independent to make it in as well. When you go higher than 8 teams, you're probably getting teams that have had either a really weak schedule or a really bad loss or two (such as losing to Stanford at home ), but it allows you to make it seem more "fair" by guaranteeing all undefeated teams that are not ranked very high (such as Hawaii) to make it into the playoffs. So to me, it's a no-brainer, at a minimum, to try out a 4-team playoff. Let's try it for 5 years, and see how it plays out. Will it be perfect? No. Will team #5 likely complain? Sure. But teams #3 and #4 won't complain. After 5 years, re-assess, and then we can either go back to 2 teams, or stick with 4, or expand to 6, etc.
Nice post. I have a hard time arguing with ya. I enjoy the bowls too. If USC isn't playing for the championship, the system must be screwed up huh? lolol :geauxtige
