I would agree some chaos is good for the BCS process... and the BCS has benefited from "some" chaos. But should "some" turn to "much"... say Oregon, tOSU, LSU/Auburn, Boise, Nebraska/Oklahoma all running the table... the overload would bring the system down. The BCS system only lives because it hasn't happened yet. This, of course, is one man's opinion. It only has value because it's mine.
I still say the BCS is the best system we have ever had. I like it this way. I think a playoff would change college football for the worse. And besides, the current system is kind to the SEC and LSU. Why some SEC fans want to change that is beyond me. As it is now, win the SEC with no more than 1 loss, and you are almost guaranteed to play for the title (unless you're Auburn, but who cares about them anyway).
2004 = unfair result for Auburn, how does a 12-0 SEC team get left out in the cold? 2007 = 2 loss team goes to BCS CG, total anarchy The unfairness and chaos has been there before. It doesn't matter. The BCS thrives.
This is correct. My plan would be to just take the top 4 in the BCS and let the bowls play out like they would normally except for #1 being pitted against #4 and #2 being pitted against #3. If it's a PAC 10 team involved, then the Rose gets the game, an SEC team involved goes to the Sugar, etc. You rotate the order of choice like you do now so that is an SEC plays a Pac 10 due to seeding, whatever bowl has first dibs gets the game. Then the BCS NC is the winner of these 2 games. It's just a minor minor minor tweak and it could be so much better. I really do think people would be satisfied for the most part with 4 teams being given a shot. The college football bowl season ends the same day it does now. No extension required. We finally get to answer the question, could a TCU or Boise State hang with a #1 or #2 ranked BCS team? Imagine: 1. Nebraska (13-0) 2. Oregon (12-0) 3. Boise State (12-0) 4. LSU (12-1)
I think the BCS does what it's supposed to do. It's job is to determine who the 2 "most deserving" teams are and pit them against each other in a National Championship game. If we end up with this: Ohio State 12-0 Oregon 12-0 LSU/Auburn 13-0 OU/Nebraska 13-0 Boise State 12-0 TCU 12-0 There will be lots of angry people and 4 really good teams NOT playing in the BCS NCG. It usually works itself out. Some of these teams will lose, but if they don't.... However, the BCS will take the 2 teams from this list that have played and beaten the best competition and put them against each other. P.S. That 13th game has always helped the SEC. It's 1 more quality win against a quality opponent at the end of the season.
I agree the BCS is the best system we've had to date. I also agree SEC fans would be crazy to want it changed.
Well, call me crazy, but I want it changed! I like islstl's plan - mine would be similar for a 4-team playoff. Think of it this way... if the current 2-team system works well for the SEC, why would a 4-team system be worse? If anything, it would be better, wouldn't it? Auburn would have gotten into a 4-team playoff in 2004, for example. It wouldn't considerably change college football as we know it either - you're simply talking about adding one more game for just two teams. Play a double-header on New Year's Day, with the winners playing in a championship game a week later. Now, I personally wouldn't want to stop at just 4 teams - I think that a 6, 8, or even 12 or 16 team playoff should be implemented, but I don't see that happening until/unless we can expand from 2 teams to 4 teams. By using bye weeks, home games, etc. for higher-ranked teams, you can still have a system that incentivizes winning in the regular season - Hypothetical situations with a larger playoff... LSU wins the SEC and finishes in the top 4, they'd get a first-round bye and/or a playoff game in Tiger Stadium, versus an LSU team that gets a lower wildcard spot due to a lower ranking, and has to go play at Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, etc. in the first round in the dead of winter.
