why? those schools live for games like michigans big loss last year, bamas loss to ulm. sorry, i disagree with much of what's contained in this thread.

besides...how many tough games would a team schedule if a playoff was instituted? think about it-right now, you have to play some tough teams, or your strength of schedule (or lack thereof) keeps you too far down in the polls to compete for the top spot. so everyone limits it to a few, while playing some tougher non conference opponents. as people say, it's a playoff every week, as most cannot afford to lose even one game-look at usc for instance....or boise st for example, who is undefeated, but is faced with not having a tough enough schedule to get a top bowl bid-and rightfully so-they'd most likely be exposed liked hawaii was.
so, let's say you have a playoff system, and the winner of each conference gets a spot-so, they play say four conference games a year. who do you think they'd face in the other games? tough, non conference opponents? hell no. they'd play every cream puff they could, to pad their stats, and to take it easy in between conference must-wins.

basically what everyone wants is a league like what you've already got-the nfl. but it's not the nfl, it's college.

now, go back through the threads, and tell me how many are about college football-how many discussions about who's the best? what is one of the things that keeps everyone's interest piqued? the current system. the money is there now, the level of interest is unequalled. if it aint broke, the ncaa won't be fixing it.

My old high school football team is rumored to be playing Ohio State in the "I'm the most overrated football team in the country" bowl ...













































































Dr. Phillips is the 6 point favorite. :tro:

Bama will play 14 games this year. Cincinnati will play 14 games. of Bamas 14, 9 will be conference games. that leaves 5 out of conference. cut the season back to 10 games, like it used to be. that still leaves 2 OOC + the conference championship. 16 team tourney would put 2 teams at 14-15 games. those not in the playoffs get the remaining bowl bids. the BCS games are the semis and finals on a rotating basis.
16 teams would be the fairest to all conferences. all 11 conferences would be represented with 5 at large bids. that covers runner-up in the SEC and when necessary the Big 12, ACC and ND (NO time soon).
Div 2, 3 and 1AA are already playing it this way and the winner in 1AA usually has more that 1 lose.

The University won't agree with that, Tide (unless they can capitalize on that somehow as well.) Those extra season games mean more money in their pockets.

they wouldn't miss the money from those games. a 16 team playoff will be worth fort knox just like march madness. ncaa could split it up amongst the div 1 teams.
the ncaa opened the schedule up three times that i remember. 10 with the option for the 11th. then 11 w/option for 12. now 12 w/option for 13 regular season games. the option game was and still is how Hawaii gets all the home games they do.

And to think the Rose bowl aligned with the Big 10 for all those years despite the distance...

And all the years that Nebraska went to the orange Bowl....

do you really think that? they make tons of money on these games, of course they'd miss it. that's why they added a few more, more revenue.

they would still get bowl $$ from the other conf. teams. don't you think the TV rights for a playoff would tower over a these crappy games? and since every conf. champ gets in, the lesser confs. get some real dough as well.

no.

how many bowl games are there? how many playoff games would you have to have to make up the difference? again, you guys are lowballing the amount of money made from the current system.
like i said last year, if the amount of money would be comparable, then what is keeping the ncaa from making the change? they aren't making it, because it's NOT comparable. do you really think they are refusing to change due to stubborness? no, it's due to the bottom line.

they (meaning the large conf.) will do all they can to hoard all of the BCS $$. my goodness, they couldn't stand for a Boise St./Ball St./Utah to actually have a shot at a Natl. Championship.
the playoffs would be in addition to bowl games, with a few exceptions (in my make believe world, anyway).
it is and it isn't about the $$, it's about greed. the rich stay rich and every once in a while they throw a bone to the poor dogs.

It's not just about the money, although that obviously does factor. But it's also about the fact that with all of these bowl games, there is a winner in every one of them. You may not think it matters much but for a lot of the schools, being able to say at the end of the season, and more importantly, when the head coach walks into the home of a recruit, that they won a bowl game, that carries some weight. Of course, the really big time recruits, the ones that the top 10 schools are going after, aren't going to care much if school x comes in and says "You know son, we won the Pulan Weedeater Bowl last year." But for the schools that aren't in the national championship chase every year, the bowl experience is a big one. Also, having conference tie-ins to bowl games means guaranteed money for all of the schools in a conference and that's money that's counted on and budgeted before the season starts. If you start having a playoff, that would change dramatically. Coaches are overwhelmingly in favor of a playoff. Athletic directors, university presidents and chancellors, alumni, and boosters aren't. I doubt we'll ever get one.

i doubt we'll get one either. and you also mentioned some very valid points regarding bowls and recruiting.
there's no way that all the games would still mean what they mean now-and folks can argue til their blue in the face that not all the bowls matter, but they do to the teams who go, and to the cities who put them on. and there's no way a playoff could include the same amt of teams who go to bowls, and there's no way that a playoff wouldn't affect the lesser bowls. of course they'd be affected, how could they not? if you do away with the big bowls, say they aren't important, why then would the smaller bowls still matter?
and yeah, it may be overly simplistic to say it's all about money, but essentially it is. everything ties into gettting the support of the boosters and the alums, because that's where the money comes from. and being able to say that you went to a bowl means a lot to the programs-and it all generates $.

it's not just teams who don't want certain schools in the big games, tv doesn't either. why does notre dame get the nod if at all possible? ratings. would usc draw more viewers than ball st, you bet your ass they would. so would the network be able to charge more per advertisement with usc in the rose bowl rather than oregon state? of course they would.

the arrogance of the rose bowl, pac12 and big 10 are holding up the playoff process.

You could have an 8 team playoff...keep the 12 game schedule and keep the bowl schedule as is. You would still have pretty much the same level bowls doing that. You just occasionally would get the 2nd place conference team when the 1st place team is in the playoff. The conferences that have a championship game may need to cut their schedules by one game. You take the top 8 schools in the BCS rankings regardless of conference or anything. Play the quarter and semi finals at the home field of the higher ranked team the last two weekends of December. Play all the big bowls on New Year's day again and have the national championship game at the selected neutral site the weekend after New Year's day...or the week after if you want an extra week for the championship game teams to prepare.

With this type system as it stands now you'd have Penn State at Alabama, Texas Tech at Oklahoma, Utah at Texas, and USC at Florida in the playoff.

You'd have an Ohio State/Oregon Rose Bowl, an Oklahoma State/Cincinnati Orange Bowl, a Georgia or Georgia Tech/Boston College Sugar Bowl, a Boise State/Brigham Young Fiesta Bowl, a TCU/Ball State Cotton Bowl or something similar to those matchups in the "big" bowl games. It doesn't really matter who is in them. Just generally teams in the 9 to 20 ranked category. You can keep conference affiliations in those games or go back to them or not.

That's my solution. I'm a bit long-winded however.

You know, somebody made an outstanding point to me the other day. Every team in college football has a chance to win a national championship in their respective divisions... except those that reside in the Mtn West, WAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, or MAC. Utah may be the best team in the country this year, they went undefeated in a league with 3 teams ranked in the BCS that went a combined 6-1 against Pac-10 opponents, but we'll never know because Div 1-A made the incredibly greedy choice of putting money over the true meaning of sport- competition.

Now they're trying to find ways to select a team ranked behind another one for their own big money games despite the fact that team A (Boise) outranks team B (Ohio State) in basically every category that matters, except potentially putting more butts in the seats.

BCS ranking: Boise 9, Ohio State 10 (check, Boise)
Record: Boise 12-0, Ohio State 10-2 (check, Boise)
Best win: Boise @ Oregon, Ohio State @ Michigan State (wash)
Worst loss: Boise NONE, Ohio State home to PSU (...I'll be kind and call it a wash because despite the two losses I have high respect for both of them)
Points for: Boise 473, Ohio State 338 (check, Boise)
Points against: Boise 147, Ohio State 158 (check, Boise)
BCS wins last 3 years Boise 1-0, Ohio State 1-2 (wash... sort of)

While I agree with your premise I would call Ohio state worst loss the shellacking they got at USC.

It is everyone solution, but the people that run the ship.

I refuse to watch or support college football until the title is settled on the field, hilarious computers picking two teams and saying "You two get to play for the hardware" is just ridiculous

i would not miss out on these great games just because of how the title is settled.
a year later, does it matter anyway who played? oh...for the record, it was lsu. :D
not that it has done them much good this year.

Why do you want to support something where only two handpicked/computer teams have a chance at winning it all.

The less money these clowns can acquire, the more they will need to actually listen to fans. Everyone, EVEN THE PRESIDENT ELECT, wants a playoff, everyone except the schools

i like football.
i'm not a dan snyder fan, but i've always loved the redskins-i'm not going to quit cheering them on just because they're now owned by a jackass. i guess i just don't see a point in witholding from myself something i enjoy, just because i don't agree with the entire situation.

But...shouldn't they count the most?

I should have been more detailed. the schools administration is who doesn't want it, the sports programs want it. they get MILLIONS just to show up at a bowl game, it is ridiculous.

OK.
I will make it easier.
When a team allows another team to score at will, every time they get the ball, they are not a good team. Texas Tech is awful away from home.

Last point is a very good one that has not been brought up often enough.

I have this little itch that keeps telling me we are going to play
Ohio St. in the Fiesta Bowl. I like this. Huge crowd. And we get
the chance to go 1 up on Ohio St.

I find the whole thing silly. Seriously of the 3, Texas should be in the championship game. When both teams are as good as they are, head to head should be it...if those were the two considered. Yeah, if Texas beat Oklahoma but lost 4 other games, sure...you can say Oklahoma is better. I don't think Oklahoma has a good enough defense to beat Florida or Alabama. Stoops has not been stellar in last games in bowls after that first win over Florida State. Oklahoma deserves just as much flak as Ohio State if not more for some of their performances in BCS games. Stoops is 2-4 in BCS games losing 4 straight now...by 20 to WEst Virginia last year...the Boise State symphony...by 36 to USC, and to LSU. Ohio State has NOT lost 4 straight BCS games.

Good stuff,HOCy.

I agree with it all (Ohio is 4-2 in bcs games---by the way) but anyone from the Defenseless League is going to get hammered in the nc game.

MORTY!!!

Burning the midnight oil last night? If you're still sick, get some rest!

The whole thing was silly with Texas' argument. Some people say that it should have come down to a Tex/Oklahoma debate because the way Tech was beaten should have knocked them out of it but if Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma St., Texas STILL doesn't go because they lost to Tech. Everyone knew going into the final weekend that it was likely going to be either Oklahoma or Tech in the conference title game. Texas had a very slim chance. I just think it's incredibly stupid to trumpet the head to head results when you lose that same tiebreaker to another team with the same record.

I hope Bama hands Utah's a$$es to them in the Sugar Bowl. :p

go utes.

Under the rules of every other league with a conference championship and the old rules in the big 12, texas would have been in the conference championship.

Not that it means anything but if Texas were to play Oklahoma again on a neutral field this weekend, who would you pick to win?

Joel Rosario.

:p I stole your bit. "pickle kisser".

I would take Texas personally.

I don't care about football anymore. Bama has to play Utah, ffs.

These stats are a little bit of a stretch considering the disparity in quality of opponents. The computers penalize the teams that lose to quality opponents too harshly while rewarding teams that go undefeated and beat no one IMO.

Not sure how a fan of an SEC team can say that, but whatever ... :p

I never understand how one can root for a conference rival. I mean you are supposed to hate them. I know that if AZ state played Iran State i would wear a turbin for a day.