Look at how many NC the SEC has won under the BCS. Suppose we were under the old bowl system, and USC played Mich. or Ohio St. in the Rose Bowl, and won. Who do you think would usually be the NC? USC. I can imagine a better system than the current one. But the current one has given a one loss (or even a TWO LOSS) SEC team an opportunity to win on the field of battle what the biased sports writers on the west coast, east coast, and Chicago, used to summarily award to USC, ND, Mich. and Ohio St., without forcing them to even play a very tough opponent. Does anyone really want to go back to that? If so, please explain why. It's better than it used to be. LSU OWES its two championships to the current BCS format, and Fla. owes its NC last year also, IMO. If we had not played Oklahoma in 2004, the championship would have been their's, most probably, or maybe USC, but definitely NOT OURS.
A one plus, 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3, winners playing, I think would go a long way to making the BCS more acceptable. And that would keep the bowls in place. I'd hate to see a 8 team or more playoff format. Right now, every team plays balls out to win every game, if we had a big playoff, I could see some teams resting starters and playing a little less intense, preparing for the playoffs, like what happens the last couple of weeks in the NFL I don't want to pay the high ticket prices I pay to see half assed effort. There is a playoff system, it's the regular season.
In 2003, this computer poll was the deciding factor of putting LSU in versus USC for the title game: Final Billingsley computer poll 2) LSU......................300.683 3) USC..................... 300.567 You tell me if LSU should have hung their hopes on some computer program as to whether they deserved a shot at the national championship? And this is coming from a computer programmer. We need to drop the idea of full out playoffs since the Presidents will have nothing to do with it, and instead focus on what a lot of people would consider a much better improvement of implementing a simple scheme of the plus 1 system.
Listen to this man. The cleverness of the BCS is that it heightens the regular season and every game counts. Not sure I would wanna see a team with 3 losses at the 16th seed getting into a playoff system (e.g., Clemson, Tennessee, Cal). You don't deserve a shot as the champs with 3 losses. Most years the top 4 teams in the BCS standings will have 0 or 1 loss at most. Our chances of finally facing USC will increase 10 fold. One caveat to the system I would like to see is having the 1 and 2 seeds playing at home. I don't know if that is going to be part of it or not.
bs. if only 4 or 8 teams get in the playoffs, no team can afford a loss. or if they can it will be rare and only one team. they will balls out all season.
Bull**** like this makes me dislike many SEC fans because while they have every right to be confident and proud of what they have accomplished, the arrogance of not being able to admit that anyone else is good, is mindboggling. No offense to LSU fans, whom I have the utmost respect for as a group, but as the Big 10 continues to get better, I can't wait to dish this crap back in his face :wave: edit: it's all about money, and unless you're screaming for corporate reform across the US, i'm surprised that you act so shocked by CFB being all about the money, like every other business in America
Well the SEC is 4-0 in BCS title games. 10-4 overall in BCS games. I would have to believe it has something to do with regular season competition. No?
More than 8 teams would definitely be bad for college football as we know it. The number that should be in is usually 4-6 deserving teams. 4 team playoff would still leave out the nonBCS folks, but it would be much better than what we currently have. I wish we could get a flexible 4-8 team playoff because that would be ideal, but not enough people, especially those in power, are willing.
When did '04 Auburn get eliminated in this so called "playoff"? Seems to me if you win every playoff game you should have a shot at the title, no?
