University of Utah = National Champion!

[MtnBuff]

Junction the dead horse is saying that Utah should be national champion. If your agenda is to punish the BCS by saying that a non-BCS conference team is champ then say that but unlike the pros, college is about the body of work over the whole year. Utah doesn't have it. This is the same thing that used to piss me off about Notre Dame when they were being called great teams. Yes they did play some of the best teams in the country but at the same time they never played two good teams in a row without a bread inbetween. They would play a Michigan then they would play and Army or Navy then play Miami. They would follow up with Temple or Pitt when they were bad. At the end of the season they could point to 4-5 big games and a great record but they never played two legit teams in a row. Utah is in the same situation, some big wins but nothing sustained, no body of work that was a challenging season.

Florida played a series of games that included consecutive games against Ol Miss, Arkansas, LSU, Kentucky, Georgia, Vandy, South Carolina with one bye week during the whole run. Utah had no run of even close to comparable difficulty. OU played a run that included TCU, Baylor (physically more talented than most MWC teams), Texas, Kansas. They then had a bit of a break with KState, Nebraska, aTm, followed by Tech, Okie State, Missouri. I understand the appeal of a Utah cinderella story but they have nothing that even comes close to this kind of challenge.

Have teams won the national championship in the past with weak schedules, certainly but we are not talking about outer years. This year there are other teams much more deserving of the title than Utah even with one loss. I guess it is a question of would you prefer a big fish in a small pond or a tougher fish in an ocean of sharks.

Last posting on this issue because if your emotion moves you to other conclusions then all the facts in the world are not going to change your mind.

 

[MtnBuff]

typo should be break not bread in first paragraph.

 

[Junction]

Junction the dead horse is saying that Utah should be national champion. If your agenda is to punish the BCS by saying that a non-BCS conference team is champ then say that but unlike the pros, college is about the body of work over the whole year. Utah doesn't have it. This is the same thing that used to piss me off about Notre Dame when they were being called great teams. Yes they did play some of the best teams in the country but at the same time they never played two good teams in a row without a bread inbetween. They would play a Michigan then they would play and Army or Navy then play Miami. They would follow up with Temple or Pitt when they were bad. At the end of the season they could point to 4-5 big games and a great record but they never played two legit teams in a row. Utah is in the same situation, some big wins but nothing sustained, no body of work that was a challenging season.

Florida played a series of games that included consecutive games against Ol Miss, Arkansas, LSU, Kentucky, Georgia, Vandy, South Carolina with one bye week during the whole run. Utah had no run of even close to comparable difficulty. OU played a run that included TCU, Baylor (physically more talented than most MWC teams), Texas, Kansas. They then had a bit of a break with KState, Nebraska, aTm, followed by Tech, Okie State, Missouri. I understand the appeal of a Utah cinderella story but they have nothing that even comes close to this kind of challenge.

Have teams won the national championship in the past with weak schedules, certainly but we are not talking about outer years. This year there are other teams much more deserving of the title than Utah even with one loss. I guess it is a question of would you prefer a big fish in a small pond or a tougher fish in an ocean of sharks.

Last posting on this issue because if your emotion moves you to other conclusions then all the facts in the world are not going to change your mind.

If you read, you saw that I'm not saying Utah should be the national champion. So I'm not sure how that's a dead horse when it comes to the point I was making. I have no agenda here, although yours is quite clear. You do not want a MWC team even being discussed for the national title. Under the rules you are setting forth, no team from a non-BCS league can ever even be considered.

I think the win over Bama gives them enough credibility that they deserve to be discussed. It is not about a "body of work", it is about the best team. Maybe every game on Utah's schedule doesn't add to their argument, but beating Bama, beating OSU on the road when USC couldn't, those are wins that do put them in the discussion. There are no losses that take them out of that discussion.

My feeling is that we need a playoff so that they have a chance to prove on the field whether or not they are the best team. I don't think they'd win it, but they have beaten some very good teams and haven't lost to anybody. To dismiss them out of hand because of a couple games on their schedule is extremely narrow minded. And clearly all the facts in the world aren't going to change that...

 

[Deleted member 807]

Did you know that CU and Utah used to be rivals when they played in the same confrence?

Anyway another good point and question I have is.

Utah has just finished a season undefeated by capping it with a BCS bowl win for the second time in four years. Has any other team in the country finished the season undefeated by winning a bcs bowl twice since the formation of the bcs? I think the Utes are the only ones to do it twice if I'm not mistaken. The Utes should be rewarded for it!

Glad to see you back, unleash. Missed ya' around here.

 

[Unleash Hell]

Colorado or Georgia Tech was not the best team in the country in 1990. It was Miami, FL. The best team doesn't always win, in fact the best team almost never wins the national title. However what Utah has done, they deserve the national title. They were the only ones to finish undefeated, they beat 5 ranked teams including 3 bcs confrence teams and, and they beat 1 team that it's only loss was to Florida. Utah deserves the national title more than any other program. Are they the best? Probably not, but they deserve it!

 

[Unleash Hell]

Glad to see you back, unleash. Missed ya' around here.

Thanks, I just needed a break. I was stressed about CU, CU fans, my job and moving. I was very bitter and needed a break from here a couple months ago. I'm doing a lot better now.

 

[Timbuff10]

I think a 16-team playoff is the only solution. First, in order to change the system the BCS commission has to vote on the new format (unanimously, I believe) and the commission is made of a member from each BCS conference--no one would vote for a playoff unless their conference were assured a playoff spot--that's 6 teams right there, then how about an undefeated mid-major team, like a Utah--you have to throw them in there. You would also have to have a Notre Dame clause considering they aren't in a conference--and no, ND will never join a conference. That's 8 teams right there. What happens if the Big 10 has co-champions? Or what if you had a situation like this year--is it fair that Cincinnati gets a berth over both Texas and Tech? In a 16-team field you can include all the conference champs, ND, multiple mid-majors, and multiple teams from the stronger conferences--all for what--1 extra week over the 8-team playoff format? Networks wouldn't line up to showcase that--I guess it's a dumb idea though, because there is no way a Utah could beat an Alabama so why even settle it on the field, the most logical place.

Edit: And no, I'm not just throwing ND in there--they obviously would have to be worthy of a spot.

If you have a clause, the system will not work. They need the 16 team playoff, that is the most logical. The 16 teams should consist of the conference champion, and then fill the rest of the spots with whoever is highest rated that isn't already in. No clauses, no nothing. If you don't have a Confernce Champ Game, or you can't figure out an iron clad way to determie a conference champion, you better figure it out or else hope you have some teams that are ranked high enough to get in.

I can't see any flaws with this system at all. Here are just some of the positives:

-It means the regular season still means as much as it did before... You just have to prove it at the end.
-The conference championship games are still huge factors, maybe bigger.
-Rankings are a huge factor.
-Higher ranked teams would get a home game playoff game and that much more money.
-There would be more big time bowl/playoff games.
-Tons more TV money with the extra important Bowl/playoff games.
-Hot teams would have a chance.
-The best team would win.
-It is fair to everyone from Ball State to Big School U.
-No long dead periods from the end of the regula season to the post season.
-Other lesser bowl games can still be played with teams ranked #17 and below.

The only problem I can see with this is two teams ill end up playing about 16 games in a year. That may be a bit much but surely not too much as big games like these would be easy to get up for. Other than that, there are no flaws with it.

 

[MtnBuff]

Junction, thanks for your clarification. I am not saying that an MWC teams (or a WAC team for that matter) could not or should not win the national championship. I am saying that to do so under the current balance of power and talent they have to do something very special to do so. It will cost them money and it will require that they go above and beyond to do so. If Utah had played an OCC schedule this year similar to some that Fresno has played in the past then it would be easier to give them a look at the title. Another issue is that the MWC has significantly improved over the past few years. While they still have a number of teams that are D1 speedbumps, they also have some teams that while not as talented as USC or Florida are legitimate threats to win on a given Saturday. If the MWC can continue to improve and a MWC champion has played a valid OOC then they should certainly get consideration for the national championship game.

At the very least, I do believe that the MWC has earned on the field an automatic bid to the BCS. Compare them to the Big East and the ACC and it is hard to argue that on the field those two conferences deserve an automatic bid and the MWC doesn't.

Unfortunately the same thing that keeps any kind of a playoff from being seriously discussed is blocking the MWCs auto bid. That is simply the fact that the existing powers have their hands into huge money bucket and they don't want any additional hands joining in. This money bucket is based on to a large extent national TV revenues and while the Big East and the ACC are not really competitive on the field they do generate TV audiences that make them a part of the system like it or not.

I am actually not a big fan of a college playoff system. I have not seen a proposal yet that answers my concerns about how you select and seed teams in a reasonably fair way. Again you get into the argument about how do you compare a mid-major champ vs. a runner up or even #3 in a top conference. How do you deal with the idea that if you have automatic seeds then somebody gets the equivelent of a bye with the Sun Belt champ or with a few of the same conference champs who got into the BCS to the exclusion of other better teams whether they be a mid-major or conference runner up.
Finally you get into the issue of the champ not being the best team for the year, just who got hot at the end.

That all said at the minimum I would propose and have posted other places the idea of having a play-in game with the two highest ranked mid-major champions. Hold it either the same Saturday as the Conference championship games or better the week following either on a weeknight or the following Saturday. The game would be the only game to watch and with the BCS seed on the line would draw big attention and ratings thus generating a bunch of extra money that could be distributed among the mids. The winner would be guaranteed a BCS bid, the loser a seed in one of the second level bowls.
This year the game would have been Utah and Boise giving addition credence to the winners claim on rankings.

The game could be played in the Cotton Bowl which is looking for a marque game to replace the Cottom Bowl itself now. Although not in the same time frame they want it would draw a good crowd to Dallas. Texas has representatives in both the WAC and the MWC and is a convienient fairly warm destination for fans from the MAC and C-USA.

Under the current system this may be the best bet for mids to gain recognition and make some money which despite the emotions of the fans is the real reason major college football exist.

 

[neil29fp]

If you have a clause, the system will not work. They need the 16 team playoff, that is the most logical. The 16 teams should consist of the conference champion, and then fill the rest of the spots with whoever is highest rated that isn't already in. No clauses, no nothing. If you don't have a Confernce Champ Game, or you can't figure out an iron clad way to determie a conference champion, you better figure it out or else hope you have some teams that are ranked high enough to get in.

?????????

You have to have a clause because ND doesn't have a conference. You would have to have one as well for mid-majors; what if Arkansas State were undefeated but were 17th, sorry not top 16. What if the highest rated Big East team was 20th--sorry no conference championship game--you're out. Let the conferences determine their champion as the please--nothing wrong with that. Why are you so up on conference championship games? The Big 10 won't have one unless they go to 12 teams--are you going to make them pick up another school--that is too much work and only impedes the process towards a playoff--why not make the 16-team selection process as simple as can be but with stipulations to include at least one team from each BCS conference, ND if they are top 12, and at least the top two ranked mid-majors. I'm not going to give any automatic bid to a 8-4 Sun Belt champion, but if they go 12-0--why not.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

This year shows us why the BCS is no better than what we had before, and why it should simply be scrapped.

Actually, this system is much better than we had before the BCS existed. If you recall, the Big 8 champ was locked into the Orange, SEC locked into the Sugar, SWC locked into the Cotton, and Big 10/Pac-10 winners locked into the Rose. So it was very rare that #1 and #2 ended up squaring off.

 

[Timbuff10]

?????????

You have to have a clause because ND doesn't have a conference. You would have to have one as well for mid-majors; what if Arkansas State were undefeated but were 17th, sorry not top 16. What if the highest rated Big East team was 20th--sorry no conference championship game--you're out. Let the conferences determine their champion as the please--nothing wrong with that. Why are you so up on conference championship games? The Big 10 won't have one unless they go to 12 teams--are you going to make them pick up another school--that is too much work and only impedes the process towards a playoff--why not make the 16-team selection process as simple as can be but with stipulations to include at least one team from each BCS conference, ND if they are top 12, and at least the top two ranked mid-majors. I'm not going to give any automatic bid to a 8-4 Sun Belt champion, but if they go 12-0--why not.

I am not saying that every conference has to have a CCG, but they must be able to select one team as their conference representitive. The easiest way to do that is with a CCG. If not, then that is fine but their only route to winning a national championship will require them to be highly ranked. If they don't want to have a CCG then fine, send whoever has the best record from tht conference just like how they select the Rose Bowl teams.

As for ND, they can still make it every year but they need to rely on being highly ranked to get their invite. I think there are about 10 or 11 conferences, that leaves a half dozen or so spots left in the playoffs for the highest ranked teams that didn't win their confernce. No more of this automatic ND invite crap to bowl games they have no business being in. How is that unfair?

Maybe this will encourage them to join a conference... If not, that is fine but their chances are a bit better if they do.

 

[Tadploe]

I see a lot of deep thinking going on that I enjoy , By the way what happeded to Collinske? the fellow with the "lime cat" he was a good read. Anyhow Utah is the red headed mormon step child and we will never have a BYU again! If Utah ends up higher than 3rd in any poll, I will eat my hat, boots and a little dog food. For what it's worth Utah played a hell of a game.

 

[Daaah]

typo should be break not bread in first paragraph.

use edit button

 

[MtnBuff]

For what it's worth Utah played a hell of a game.

Utah gave us exactly what a lot of people wanted out of this game. Everybody loves to see the bully get thumped on (except the bully.) I am sure that Saban will never approach a bowl game against a non-BCS school the same again.

Americans love to see the underdog, the unknown step up and not only win but to look good doing it. With all the sniping that the SEC has been doing towards the Big X, this along with Wyoming beating Tennessee gives them some pretty red faces.

I have no question that if they played next week that Alabama would win and likely win big but for one night in front of the whole nation little backwater Utah took the mighty Crimson Tide to the woodshed.:thumbsup:

 

[stampy]

I love this discussion and personally, I would vote Utah #1.

If you watched the Ala-Florida game, I think it is clear Utah beat them more soundly. I don't see how they can be criticized for their scheduling, as schedules are generally set several years out, and playing Oregon St and at Ann Arbor most years isn't exactly tip toeing through the tulips.

Also, I think it is unfair to lump the MWC in with Conference USA and the WAC, there are probably three teams in the MWC that could win either of those conferences. actually, there are at least two teams in the MWC that could win the Big East.

 

[Junction]

Junction, thanks for your clarification. I am not saying that an MWC teams (or a WAC team for that matter) could not or should not win the national championship. I am saying that to do so under the current balance of power and talent they have to do something very special to do so. It will cost them money and it will require that they go above and beyond to do so. If Utah had played an OCC schedule this year similar to some that Fresno has played in the past then it would be easier to give them a look at the title. Another issue is that the MWC has significantly improved over the past few years. While they still have a number of teams that are D1 speedbumps, they also have some teams that while not as talented as USC or Florida are legitimate threats to win on a given Saturday. If the MWC can continue to improve and a MWC champion has played a valid OOC then they should certainly get consideration for the national championship game.

At the very least, I do believe that the MWC has earned on the field an automatic bid to the BCS. Compare them to the Big East and the ACC and it is hard to argue that on the field those two conferences deserve an automatic bid and the MWC doesn't.

Unfortunately the same thing that keeps any kind of a playoff from being seriously discussed is blocking the MWCs auto bid. That is simply the fact that the existing powers have their hands into huge money bucket and they don't want any additional hands joining in. This money bucket is based on to a large extent national TV revenues and while the Big East and the ACC are not really competitive on the field they do generate TV audiences that make them a part of the system like it or not.

I am actually not a big fan of a college playoff system. I have not seen a proposal yet that answers my concerns about how you select and seed teams in a reasonably fair way. Again you get into the argument about how do you compare a mid-major champ vs. a runner up or even #3 in a top conference. How do you deal with the idea that if you have automatic seeds then somebody gets the equivelent of a bye with the Sun Belt champ or with a few of the same conference champs who got into the BCS to the exclusion of other better teams whether they be a mid-major or conference runner up.
Finally you get into the issue of the champ not being the best team for the year, just who got hot at the end.

That all said at the minimum I would propose and have posted other places the idea of having a play-in game with the two highest ranked mid-major champions. Hold it either the same Saturday as the Conference championship games or better the week following either on a weeknight or the following Saturday. The game would be the only game to watch and with the BCS seed on the line would draw big attention and ratings thus generating a bunch of extra money that could be distributed among the mids. The winner would be guaranteed a BCS bid, the loser a seed in one of the second level bowls.
This year the game would have been Utah and Boise giving addition credence to the winners claim on rankings.

The game could be played in the Cotton Bowl which is looking for a marque game to replace the Cottom Bowl itself now. Although not in the same time frame they want it would draw a good crowd to Dallas. Texas has representatives in both the WAC and the MWC and is a convienient fairly warm destination for fans from the MAC and C-USA.

Under the current system this may be the best bet for mids to gain recognition and make some money which despite the emotions of the fans is the real reason major college football exist.

One reason I'm not so down on Utah for their OOC schedule is that I suspect they are in much the same situation CU is with CSU. Utah is the big dog state school in Utah, with Utah State and Weber in lower level conferences. My guess is that Utah gets plenty of heat in state to throw the smaller schools a bone. If you look at those two games as games they may not have a lot of choice in scheduling, having Michigan and Oregon State in the other two OOC slots isn't anything to be ashamed of. Granted, those in-state games don't do anything for their case, but such is life.

As for the playoff, you can poke holes in any system. The NCAA tourney has 65 teams and ESPiN can still go on for hours about teams that were snubbed. I have generally thought 8 games would be best for a playoff. But after reading some of the points made here, I'm thinking 16 would be best to cover getting all the current BCS conferences in, plus allow for teams like Utah this year and leave a possible slot for Notre Damn, who will of course have to be accounted for... :huh:

 

[DesertDawg526]

Actually, this system is much better than we had before the BCS existed. If you recall, the Big 8 champ was locked into the Orange, SEC locked into the Sugar, SWC locked into the Cotton, and Big 10/Pac-10 winners locked into the Rose. So it was very rare that #1 and #2 ended up squaring off.

We can agree to disagree.

I think the former Bowl tie-ins is what helped to make them more special. I also think it's more exciting to see the major Bowls all played on January 1. My personal opinions.

I think it's also still rare with the BCS to have the two best teams face each other. Florida and Oklahoma may be ranked #1 and #2 now, but I personally don't think either team is as good as Texas or USC. Who is right? Who knows, but with so many one-loss teams this year Florida and Oklahoma just happened to be picked, despite them losing later in the year than USC for example. I know this would seem to favor a playoff system to determine the results on the field, but I don't believe an adequate playoff system could be implemented without destroying the current Bowl games.

Consider me one person who does not think the current BCS system is better than it was. I know there are many other people who feel the same, and I know there are some such as you who prefer the BCS.

There is no good way to perfect the rankings in college football, we'll always be dealing with that. Though I personally don't feel Utah is the best team right now, I think they should be #1 because they beat several quality opponents and they are the only team who ended up undefeated. Nobody else took care of business the way Utah did. Their claim is as legitimate as anybody elses, yet the winner of Florida/Oklahoma is automatically dubbed #1? Even if they potentially both play crappy and are not as sharp as some of the other teams? That makes no sense to me. Let all the games be played, and (without a playoff) then evaluate the teams at the end of the year...

My $0.02

 

[ladyblaise]

I love this discussion and personally, I would vote Utah #1.

me too, both counts.

Also, I think it is unfair to lump the MWC in with Conference USA and the WAC, there are probably three teams in the MWC that could win either of those conferences. actually, there are at least two teams in the MWC that could win the Big East.

the question i have with respect to those who want the mwc to have an automatic bcs berth is this: why just them? why not the wac? two teams from the wac also made it to a bcs game, one of whom won.

 

[Deleted member 807]

While overhauling the bowl system, might as well overhaul the conferences, too.

Just make 16 different conferences with 10 teams each, where everyone in the conference gets to play everyone else. Each conference winner advances to the sixteen bracket playoffs.

Prohibit teams from scheduling all three OCC games at home, which forces programs to quit padding their schedule with pre-conference cupcakes.

 

[MtnBuff]

This year the MWC is clearly superior, last year the WAC would have claimed with Hawaii and Boise along with Fresno State that they held the balance of power, expecially coming off of Boises bowl win against OU. From the looks of things the balance of power is moving toward the MWC with three strong teams and a lot of young talent.
The MWC is also stronger in the middle of the conference than the WAC this year but again a couple of years ago an argument could be made as could C-USA. Remember that Tulsa was undefeated for a period of time this year and UCF was ranked as high as #5 last year.

I would agree that this year at least two (Utah, TCU) if not three (BYU) schools would win the ACC and probably the Big East. Unfortunately the decisions on who gets what level of participation is not based on on-field performance, it is strictly a business decision and those who have their share of the money are not going to willingly give it up to other conferences that they don't see as bringing more money to the table. The level of participation that the mids have now is only because the BCS schools know that they have to give some to maintain their position of control.

This is all part of why I think that a mid-major championship game would not only make a lot of money but also generate some positive media attention for the conferences. No matter what we talk about with changing the system the dollars are to huge for those who have their share to risk including others in the pie without a guarantee of a return. The MWC and the others can't give that. Given this situation I think looking at other options makes sense.

 

[stampy]

the question i have with respect to those who want the mwc to have an automatic bcs berth is this: why just them? why not the wac? two teams from the wac also made it to a bcs game, one of whom won.

I'm not making the argument that the MWC should have an automatic berth, it is just my opinion that most years running the conference in the MWC is more impressive than going undefeated in the other non-BCS conferences.

fwiw, I do think that Utah played a better opponent than any previous non-BCS program in a BCS game, and beat them more handily.

 

[ladyblaise]

i don't see a playoff forming, despite the numerous coaches, fan support and president-elect support of the idea.

docta loon pointed out about a month back that a playoff would not happen because currently, funds for bowl games are turned over to conferences, and they have total control about how to divy the cash up. the origin of bowl games is such that the ncaa does not get control over that.

contrast that with march madness. guess who gets to decide exactly how that money is allocated? our friends at the ncaa, that is who.

what conference is willing to give up the millions they often make off of the bowl system as it stands?

 

[Timbuff10]

Ok, two issues people seem to have in this thread.

1. "The hot team can win and snub the team that had the best overall year." In what other sport does the hottest team at the end not deserve to win it all? I don't know anything about Golf, Nascar, and Tennis, but the NFL, every basketball league, baseball, soccer, hockey, and every other sport that I can think of uses a best team at the end wins it all type of thing. Why should college football be different?

2. "Utah didn't put together the best body of work." -They were undefeated, they won more games than anyone else and lost less games than everyone else. I can understand using the schedule excuse if teams were tied for the same record, but they were a full game ahead of everyone. Maybe even if they had a Ball St type schedule and didn't play against Alabama, OSU, TCU, BYU and Michigan.

In the Big 12, after Texas and Oklahoma, is there anyone that Utah wouldn't be favored against right now?

 

[ladyblaise]

I'm not making the argument that the MWC should have an automatic berth, it is just my opinion that most years running the conference in the MWC is more impressive than going undefeated in the other non-BCS conferences.

fwiw, I do think that Utah played a better opponent than any previous non-BCS program in a BCS game, and beat them more handily.

stamps, i know it was not you, but another poster who advocates the mwc automatic berth idea.

you had some good points of view regarding the mwc, and i piggybacked the question off of those statements.

i think that the wac would have something to say about competitiveness.

and i agree, i was in total awe of what utah did to bama. was it a fluke? who knows? there is one shot to put it on the field, and all parties are aware of this from the word, "go."

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I really hope there is a backlash against the paper champion this year, so much to the point where the NCAA has to install a expansive playoff system.

Your pretty naive. I bet you didn't know that the entire bowl system is not sanctioned and barely recognized by the NCAA. The games are barely allowed to be recorded as wins and losses. These games are nothing more than "Chamber of Commerce, come check out my City" games. Until TV stops contracting and ticket sales pancake the bowls will always be in control. Welcome to the Death Star.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

No problem.:smile2:

I think Utah should get serious consideration for AP champion. Do I think they would win an 8 team playoff if Division I had one. No, because USC would win that. Every year. Just watch any pregame or halftime shows the last 3 or 4 years. Well if USC is that damn good every year, win your conference games. Utah did and the MWC is stronger than the PAC-10 right now. Hawaii in a BCS game last year was a joke, just look at their nonconference games. But Boise State and Utah, as well as teams like TCU and Fresno State who have never quite made it to a BCS game, deserve more consideration because they go out and try to play the big boys year in and year out.

The solution is pretty simple in my mind; go back to the traditional bowl seatings and eliminate multiple teams from the same conference to attend the BCS. In other words, you don't win your conference you dont get into the BCS Playoffs. The two open spots would be 1/2 Fiesta and 1/2 Sugar for the lesser conferences. Winners of the 4 bowls advance to a final 4, then 2, then all the marbles.

 

[Timbuff10]

Your pretty naive. I bet you didn't know that the entire bowl system is not sanctioned and barely recognized by the NCAA. The games are barely allowed to be recorded as wins and losses. These games are nothing more than "Chamber of Commerce, come check out my City" games. Until TV stops contracting and ticket sales pancake the bowls will always be in control. Welcome to the Death Star.

Well, it is all about money. If you offer up more cash than what the current system has to offer then things will change. A 16 team playoff will do that. Play a few games at these bowl sites and they will make way more money. Other than the Rose Bowl, and "national championship" games how many of these BCS games are sell outs? From what I have seen so far, most of these bowl games are lucky to get half the tickets sold.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

The solution is pretty simple in my mind; go back to the traditional bowl seatings and eliminate multiple teams from the same conference to attend the BCS. In other words, you don't win your conference you dont get into the BCS Playoffs. The two open spots would be 1/2 Fiesta and 1/2 Sugar for the lesser conferences. Winners of the 4 bowls advance to a final 4, then 2, then all the marbles.

If you only took the conference champions then you wouldn't be putting the 8 best teams in the playoff. If they go to an 8-team playoff, the only way to do it would be to take the top 8 teams in the BCS standings or the top 8 picked by a committee, however you want to do. But it needs to be the top 8 regardless of conference affiliation, and this year that would've included 3 Big12 teams and none from either the Big East or ACC.

 

[unbiasedtruth]

winner of the game this thursday 1/08 between OU & UF will be #1 in both polls.... AP more than likely will put Utah #3 behind Texas.... if Utah gets lucky they will be #2. Heck USC may even jump to #3 and Utah #4..... (based on Texas winning tonight)

See Boise State in 2006.... where were they ranked after finishing as the only undefeated team in the nation that year???? #5 with 4 one loss teams ranked aboved them....

as far as a college football playoff with 4, 8, 16 teams.... wish in one hand, poop in the other and see which one fills up 1st....

 

[RuffBuff]

Haha, I like the girl's sign at the end: "13-0, no forumula needed"

she spelled it like that?