That's fair. However, all of these teams have a loss, anyway. They took control out of their hands when they lost their game. How many years do you think there will be 5+ teams that are all undefeated from major conferences?
I was going there next, but you beat me to it. Good job. All in all, the "system" has had its ups and downs, but except for 2004, which I think everyone is in agreement Auburn would have given USC a better run than Okla-homo, the BCS has gotten just about as close as getting the two best teams together. There have been tweaks along the way, but, honestly, are UF and Okla-homo really not the two best teams? Ok, UT beat them, I got it. But it's really not that far off.
I'm looking at all possibilities. The tie does have to be for the #1 spot. A sh!tload of teams could be tied for the #2 spot (US, UGA, USC, OU, VT last year) what if there is 1 unbeaten and 4 with 1 loss. who is the 1 that gets left out? or do we just scrap the bowls that year since there is a clear cut 1? Part of the problem with the BCS is tat they always try to fix what just happened instead of what could happen.
It's sort of like the 64 team NCAA field in basketball in that some bubble team who thinks they belong gets left out. If a one loss number 9 team gets left out, that's ok with me because the bottom line is, the title still gets settled on the field. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't count when it comes to this.
My thing is this. I just want the system to be such that if you go unbeaten in a major conference, you are guaranteed a shot a the title. You lose a game?? You still have a chance, but you better hope to get lucky. In my book, no one but Auburn has a legitimate grip in the history of the BCS. They went undefeated in the SEC and couldn't play for the championship. What more could they have done?
kinda like Texas and OU settled it on the field this year? Remove Utah and Boise from the mix if you want, but you're still left with 7 teams, with the same record begging for 4 spots. And the last team on the list (Penn State) is being penalized for what Ohio State has done the last 2 years in the postseason, while the #1 team (OU) is forgiven for what they have done themselves in their last 4 postseasons.
I understand and agree with you. But every playoff that has been proposed in this thread fixes nothing. It only moves the problem. More often than not, you have a handful of teams that can legitimately claim the 2-4 spots. Rarely do you have 3 teams that can legitimately claim #1. So in reality, these playoff systems would create even more controversy than the current system does now.
That's my hard stance... I don't care if we move the problem, I just want it moved. #1 is too important to leave someone out. If teams want to battle over who should be #2, let 'em whine. In every other sport, if you win all of your games, you're guaranteed a shot at the title. That's what's broken about College Football. I don't care at all about the years with multiple 1 loss teams. Others do. That's where I differ.
here's where you and I will have to disagree. If there s going to be a playoff, we need to eliminate the polls completely (which in turn will ruin what is great about college football). Have nobody VOTING on who gets in and who is left out. Voters are wrong on a regular basis. Somebody gave OU a 1st place vote (before the bowls) last year, yet got beat by a team that wasn't even in the top 10.
I'm completely okay with a solution where every conference champion gets into the playoffs. I might prefer some kind of ranking system where the 8 highest ranking conference champions get in over a 16 team playoff where every team is in, but that's just my preference. I just also know how unrealistic an option it is. I want to see a +1 because it's the only option I think has a realistic shot at passing.
