Tough call. When dealing with the 6 power conferences, I think conf championship should have more weight than ratings. When dealing with mid-majors, a conference championship alone should not be a guarantee. From October 11 - Nov. 1 (that's 4 weeks with no bye), Texas played the exact same number (4) of ranked (using end of season rankings) as Boise played in '05, '06, '07, and '08 (not counting bowls) COMBINED. Texas went 3-1, Boise went 1-3. So, no I don't think Boise gets automatic inclusion. Maybe some years simply going unbeaten and winning the WAC would be enough. I don't think this is one of those years however.
And when Boise St is rated 10 and one of the BCS champs is rated 20? Which of these two teams has had a more championship caliber season? The team that did everything that was asked of it (Boise St can't help which conference they are in) or the team that had every opportunity to finish in the top 10 and just wasn't strong enough to do so? I understand the strength of schedule argument and believe it should be a bigger part of rating teams, but winning games counts for something as well. I would much rather see an unbeaten Boise St who may be a championship level team rather than an underachieving Virginia Tech who has definitely not had a NC level season. There is NO doubt that Va Tech doesn't belong. The smallest doubt that might come with a highly rated nonBCS team should trump that.
I didn't say we were including all BCS conference champs. I just said good luck convincing the world that #9 gets in over #3 because "well they won a chicken sh!t conference"
One of the big issues with the BCS is that nonBCS teams don't get a real shot at playing for the NC. You don't seem interested in that, but I think a number of folks are. I think a cap should be utilized so that teams masquerading as conference champions will be barred. I also leave a little room for at large teams to make the NC, but make that a possibility that will only happen when conference champs aren't rated high enough. One team per conference is my motto. I've got some other ideas about nonBCS teams, such as changing up the rating system used and placing additional restrictions on nonBCS teams, but I don't think we should continue the legacy of exclusion. I think giving nonBCS teams a real shot at the title will be better for college football, not worse. Just don't give nonBCS teams a free pass.
I'm not saying don't let the small ones in. Sure give them a shot. But not at the expense of a team that is easily in the discussion for #1 team in the country. If you're going to have a TRUE playoff system, the best teams have to get in. As soon as you say "here's our playoff, but # 3 gets to watch while several weaker teams get to play" about 90% of the country is going to laugh at this playoff. Case in point, you would have let Hawaii in over UGA last year. How did that work out for ya? Afterall, Hawaii won their conference, and UGA "didn't win on the field when it counted"
Part of the problem, though, is the conference tie-ins. Get rid of the tie-ins and add a +1 format. There may still be a team left out of the +1, but it's still better than what we have now. (Didn't go back and check the posts, so this may have already been stated. If so, apologize in advance for the double tap).
If a team like Texas is left out because another team from their conference is rated higher and has secured the Big12 conference title, I believe the balking will be significantly muted. You'll always have those that say, "Well, Texas would be undefeated with Boise St's schedule," and that is probably a true statement. The fact remains, however, that Boise St would love to switch places with Texas - that opportunity is not available to them. Boise St has done the best they could have done given the situation they find themselves in. If they are rated high enough, let them in. This isn't about what Texas could have done, it is about what Texas did do. They didn't win their conference, and that was decided on the field when they couldn't stop Texas Tech. No computers, no BS, they lost it on the field. We don't need Texas, we have Oklahoma. Texas will go to a nice bowl. This is another key point. If we make a playoff too big, the secondary bowls will suffer. Putting teams like Texas in the secondary bowl pool allows these bowls to coexist with a playoff; it maintains the unique tradition of 1a bowl games. We never would have had that bowl matchup with a playoff; Hawaii would have been in and UGA would have been out, as you say. And I don't have a problem with that. Crowning a champion is about more than just potential, it is about results. Hawaii was undefeated in the regular season and ranked 10th in the BCS. What else could they have done? I think 10th is probably a good cutoff, and if Hawaii makes it, I say welcome to the NC playoff. If they crash and burn, so be it; it was decided on the field, rather than by the mindset that nonBCS teams shouldn't be on the same field as BCS teams. Didn't Boise St beat Oklahoma, didn't Appalachian St beat Michigan? Football was meant to be determined on the field. If the little guys can jump through the hoops, let them play. College football will be better for it. If teams like Texas and Georgia don't make the playoff, it can't be said that they weren't afforded the opportunity. They just didn't sieze it. I think we could do better than a +1, but politics may not allow it. I don't think conferences should be guaranteed to play for the NC, even in a playoff. I don't have a problem with high caliber bowl guarantees, but I'd like to see a playoff kept small, with only truly desrving teams making the cut. But is that realistic? Doubtful.
explain to me how they lost it ON THE FIELD. because the game I watched between those 2 had Texas winning by 10 on a Neutral field. They didn't lose it on the field, they lost it in the computers. you're right, they wouldn't have played UGA. instead they would have played someone like LSU, Ohio State, USC, OU, VaTech, WVA. Outcome would probably have been similar. Congrats on creatinf a 1st round matchup that no one in the country is even remotely interested in watching. You're missing the point entirely. How can you look the fans in the eye and say here is our system of determining the BEST team in the country. Except that some of these top 5 and top 10 guys don't get to play. So what if they're actually better than half the playoff field. We need to have diversity and let the little guys play, because hey upsets do happen sometimes. If you're not letting the BEST teams in, your playoff is a farce at best and a complete failure at worst. Seriously, name me one playoff system in any American Sport that is set up in such a way that 2 of the top 4 teams don't get to participate while 4-6 teams ranked below them do get to play. That's the entire reason for all our pro sports having Wild Card spots. Because sometimes a team that finishes 2nd in one division is assloads better than a team that finishes 1st in another. I can't wait to see how many people cry about how sh!tty college football has become when a playoff is instituted. Right now, the game has National appeal. Everyone watches whoever is in the top 2-3 to see if they lose and their team moves up. With a playoff, you make it more regional than anything else. SEC fans will pretty much only watch SEC games with a casual eye (at best) on scores from around the country. Why? Beacuase a top 10 SEC champ is in, regardless of what happens in the other conferences. So those games now have a lot less meaning to SEC fans. Same with Big XII, Pac-10, Big Ten fans. That is why the NFL has the regional TV deals they have (only 2 Nationally televised games a week). No one from the AFC west gives 2 sh!ts about what's going on in the NFC South. College on the other hand has quite a bit more Nationally televised games every week. Why? Because that Ohio State vs. Penn State game actually meant a good bit to people in just about every conference. When talking about games meaning something, everyone only wants to think of their team. Yes, your team still must play every game like it is their last. That won't change. What will change is how interested a West Virginia fan gets for a USC game.
Exactly. College football will turn into the NFL. You can lose 4 games, and still make it to the playoffs. If there is a playoff system, they should make all major conferences play a championship and let them duke it out. I love how exciting it is that if a team loses two or even one game, their season could be over. Now, every game is sudden death, and that's one reason why it is superior to the pros.
Are you asking me to explain how Texas Tech had more points at the end of their game with Texas? That's pretty basic stuff. You are turning this into off-the-field arguments... Texas would have won by 10 on a neutral field... I don't deal in what-ifs. You're guessing the outcome would have been similar. I'd guess you picked Oklahoma to beat Boise St and Michigan to beat Appalachian St as well. I don't deal in what-ifs. You seem pretty hung up on off-the-field prejudices for a guy who is interested in on-the-field accomplishments. And anyway, so what if they lose. They had their shot on the field and lost. Texas can't say that they didn't have a chance on the field. The team that Boise St plays will get a cakewalk in the preliminary round if your assumptions are correct. No biggie. No one would be interested in a Cinderella team? Don't teams like that get pretty good play in the college basketball playoffs? I think a lot of people would be interested. Why should teams like Texas and Alabama get a second, and sometimes third, chance? I cherish the value of every regular season game. The Big 12 is already being represented by Oklahoma. By allowing Texas in you are taking away the importance of Oklahoma's achievements. I, and many, place a lot of importance in being able to win your conference. It shows that not only are you talented, but that you are also able to seal the deal. I'm sure Texas is more talented than Boise St, but they haven't had a season as successful as Boise St. Boise St did everything they were asked, Texas could not stop Texas Tech. Allowing highly rated nonBCS teams make college football more legitimate, makes college football more interesting to nonBCS fanbases, whose teams make up about HALF of college football, brings in the excitement that only Cinderella can bring, and gives nonBCS teams a chance to prove on the field that they either are or are not competitive. Allowing teams like Texas and Alabama will hurt the traditional bowl system and the regular season. College football and it's regular season is unique. NFL teams rest their starters at the end of the season so that they can do better in the playoffs. Regular season games are less important in the NFL. I don't want to see that in college football. There are no bowls to worry about in the NFL. There are only 30 something teams in the NFL. There is more parity in the NFL. The NFL postseason isn't limited by academic concerns and is not as efficient as it could be. The NFL and college football are significantly different. Probably not as many as complain about the BCS. I'll assume your argument that there is more national appeal for CFB than there is for NFL football is true. I'm not sure if that is a valid argument, but I don't have a problem with that line of thinking. I agree that a playoff should be carefully crafted and I definitely disgree that conferences should get an automatic spot in the playoffs, following your line of reasoning. A rating of 10 may not be the best cutoff, and I've been working with a number of 6 or 8 for BCS team and a number of 10 or 12 or 16 for nonBCS teams. I'm not sure making different ceilings for BCS and nonBCS teams is the way to go, though, so I settled on 10 for the purposes of this thread. That seems too high for BCS teams, IMO, but I think it would be a more acceptable number to BCS conferences. In reality, it seems the BCS conferences will demand playoff inclusion, but that is something I'd fight. I'd put a ceiling in place to keep conference champs out that aren't highly rated. Making all major conferences play championship games is unnecessary and doesn't keep Kansas St in 2003 or LSU in 2001 from winning the conference. Just using conference champions is not the way to go, IMO. I also like the importance of every college football game and intellectually strive to preserve it.
