[Lefty Noob]

Well, should the NCAA stick with the BCS, or finally establish a Division I-A playoff system? I think I know how this poll will turn out, but... let's try it anyway!

[xdavidwattsx]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Well, should the NCAA stick with the BCS, or finally establish a Division I-A playoff system? I think I know how this poll will turn out, but... let's try it anyway!

This is a no brainer.

The only people who support the BCS are the people employed by them and the Football Bowl Association (and the coaches of a few prominent programs who have found themselves on the lucky side of the computer screwups).

May they all rot in hell!

[anrobins]

Think of the NCAA basketball tournament multiplied. That's what a football playoff would be. If necessary, restrict teams to 11 regular season games. Have conference championships in every conference (I would love a Big Ten Championship that rotated Between cities in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio). Then use the several weeks that teams usually have off or when the lesser bowls are played for the playoffs. It would keep massive interest in college football, games would mean more, there would still be plenty of cash, and the quality would be unbelievable because teams wouldn't have three weeks to a month of between games.

[Jcomp]

I think the only real way to pull off a college football playoff in Division I-A is to only accept conference champions into the playoff. If there's any other subjectivity in the selection process you're back to square one regarding the human factor of who gets in and who stays out. It's bad enough in college basketball each year, with certain bubble teams squeezing in while others get stuck going to the NIT. The college football tournament probably wouldn't have anywhere near as many teams as the basketball tournament. (#1 vs. #64 seems tremendously unnecessary in college football). The bickering about who gets in and who gets seeded where would be deafening without a very strict criteria that leaves little to human input.

[Lefty Noob]

Whoa, we actually have a vote for the BCS!

Whoever voted in favor of the BCS, I'd love to hear your reasons behind it. What is it about the current system that you like?

[xdavidwattsx]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Whoa, we actually have a vote for the BCS!

Whoever voted in favor of the BCS, I'd love to hear your reasons behind it. What is it about the current system that you like?

Whoever voted for BCS should cut their own arms off.

[EmpireWF]

There's plus and minuses towards each.

The BCS allows smaller schools (like Rutgers) the ability to play on the nationa stage and get some recognition that will help them recruit. If it was strictly a playoff, they never would get that opportunity.

Ofcourse, everyone loves a good 'ol playoff system.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Whoa, we actually have a vote for the BCS!

Whoever voted in favor of the BCS, I'd love to hear your reasons behind it. What is it about the current system that you like?

Make that two votes for the BCS...come on now...a playoff system?...that's so NFL...what's the fun in that?...sure you will have an overall champion after a zillion games are played...but where would we be without the BCS huh?...Apathy would set in...you need to hate the system...its a ying and yang thing...look at the Olympics without the Big Bad Soviet Union...yes, they were a big bad super power...yes they cheated...yes they were pro's really...and I miss "hating" them for it...its not the same...just kill the college game why don't you...heck lets just start paying them an do away with all the scandals in the process...

And now you want to take away the BCS from me?...you want a playoff system...you want an undisputed champion...now really, what's the fun in that?...we just don't know how good we have it...

[xdavidwattsx]

Originally Posted by EmpireWF

The BCS allows smaller schools (like Rutgers) the ability to play on the nationa stage and get some recognition that will help them recruit. If it was strictly a playoff, they never would get that opportunity.

I'm struggling to follow the logic there.

[anrobins]

How does the BCS allow smaller schools a chance? It all comes down to who generates money in the BCS, which has allowed big name schools to be in bowls which less well known schools earned the right to be in. At least a playoff system could be set up to allow smaller teams who are truly good to get in the playoff.

[cjg11582]

Everything comes down to generating money and it is crucial the smaller schools are included. The best solution for a playoff system is to compose a sixteen team field consisting of the eleven conference champions and five at-larger bids. The reason for this would be two-fold. The system would cater towards equal opportunity (i.e. smaller programs) and teams with exceptionally difficult schedules. And who wouldn't watch?
Dissenters for the playoff system have a multitude of reasons for maintaining the current system (or even detracting back to the traditional system, the Big Ten-Pac Ten Rose Bowl etc.) but all of the justification is amazingly flawed. However when figureheads make these arguments they are all just a facade, their real motive is money, and for whatever reason they don't think a playoff system will make any (Even this is shortsighted). But College football fans that concur with the fake arguments from University presidents and bowl commisioners are even more flummoxing.
One of those reasons is at that point, football takes precedent over academics... Who are these people kidding? Of course it takes precedent over academics! It always has. I am not inferring this is morally sound, but virtually every other collegiate sport has some brand of tournament to decide its national champion. No one seems to mind when The NCAA Basketball Tournament rolls around. Why? Because we are all lost in a surreal haze of filling out brackets, debating favorites and possible Cinderella's, those dictating what transpires do not mind because it has proven to be extremely lucrative.
Tradition... To be perfectly candid, there isn't a great deal of tradition within the current bowl structure. Texas back-to-back Rose Bowl champions? I have no qualms with it, but Texas' success in Pasadenia reflects progression far more than tradition. This year all traditional New Years Day bowl games were on hiatus until at least January 2nd. Why? Becuase New Years Day fell on a Sunday and neither the NCAA nor the bowl committees desired to compete with the lion in the marketing jungle: The NFL.
Eventually college football is going to be forced into confronting its own hypocrisy. It is still possible too have a sixteen team playoff and maintain the supplementary bowl games. The teams for schools like Oklahoma State, Minnesota and Clemson will still be able to raise money for their athletic department, even though those bowl contracts will certainly be de-valued. If one seeks to make an argument against a playoff system then they should follow Jim Tressel's lead and voice concern with the players future in the pros, and explain how a playoff system would potentially jepoardize their future. It's practical, and you have to like a guy who can turn a debate about the structure of the post-season into a recruiting tool.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by cjg11582

If one seeks to make an argument against a playoff system then they should follow Jim Tressel's lead and voice concern with the players future in the pros, and explain how a playoff system would potentially jepoardize their future. It's practical, and you have to like a guy who can turn a debate about the structure of the post-season into a recruiting tool.

...Or one can simply say that its a free market economy and acknowledge that the current system is in place because we live in America...and the minute that someone comes up with a plan that makes the school's who are getting the lions of the money a bit richer with another scheme...we would be more than half-way to a playoff system....

lets put it in the simplest of terms...by show of hands now...how many of you out there would take say, 25% or 30% of your money, go to someone with a lower social status that seems to be one heck of a great worker and had a great year, and say..."Hey buddy, you are a heck of a great worker...but since your pay check doesn't match mine...here is 25% more for you...I didn't have the great year you had. Any takers?...going once...going twice...well, why on earth would the big name school's getting the lion's share, want to cut the pie any other way?...to satisfy the college craze masses that want a playoff system?...and to the idealistic Tressel, what does this have to do with the kids in school?...provide them with a proper education...stop boosters from fawning over them and you'll go farther to taking care of thier future.

[desertrat]

If the NCAA doesn't go to a playoff format, I personally would prefer to see them eliminate the BCS and go back to the traditional bowl game setup. Every year the BCS seems to create controversy by leaving out somebody deserving of a BCS game. I am a longtime Husker fan but even I know the Huskers had no business playing Miami in 2001 after the blowout loss to Colorado. The BCS repeated this mistake in 2003 when 35-7 loser Oklahoma adavnced to the BCS title game. I also have suspicions about the computer formulas used by the BCS. What criteria do they use and why are they so secretive about it? A playoff would be the ideal way to go but then the we lose the traditional bowl games. Tough choice either way.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by desertrat

Every year the BCS seems to create controversy by leaving out somebody deserving of a BCS game.

isn't that half the fun ...with out controversy what would you have to talk about the next day if the two top teams player a snoozer of a game?

[desertrat]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

isn't that half the fun ...with out controversy what would you have to talk about the next day if the two top teams player a snoozer of a game?

I guess it would be fun if it wasn't always a Pac-10 team that seems to be getting shafted. In 2001 Oregon got left out of title game when my Husker undeservedly got in. In 2003 #1 ranked USC is left out of BCS title game for 35-7 loser Oklahoma. In 2004 10-1 Cal got left out of the BCS picture for Texas. Texas did provide a classic game with Michigan but the trend against the Pac-10 continued. Last year 10-1 Oregon is left out for 9-2 Notre Dame. The trend has been anti Pac-10 ever since they went along with the Big 10 and joined the BCS.