What is the deal with the BCS, why cant college football have playoffs. Maybe not playoffs, but something else besides the BCS. Yeah, it might have worked this year. I mean I think that LSU vs. Miami is going to be a great match-up, but everybody knows the BCS has holes in the system.
I don't know what the perfect system would be. I'm not a big fan of the BCS however I've also never been impressed with any of the playoff systems that have been suggested. I can find holes in just about any system that has benn mentioned. So the queston is to we replaed the current flawed system with a different flawed system?
The easiest solution is so simple and is certainly not original. Take the winners of the 4 BCS and have a 2 game playoff. They're may be some controversy over the at larges bids, but so what. Win your conference and you won't have to worry about it. This method keeps the current bowl system in tact and names a champion on the field. It's so easy. Why not do it?
Here's why not 2004 BCS matchups Rose Bowl: #4 Texas vs. #13 Michigan Fiesta Bowl: #6 Utah vs. #21 Pittsburgh Sugar Bowl: #3 Auburn vs. #8 VaTech Orange Bowl: #2 Oklahoma vs. #1 USC Do we really want 2 teams not even in the top ten with a shot at the National title? In an 8 team field, do we really want 3 teams ranked 8th or worse? NOTE: not to mention the controversy that surrounded Texas suddenly jumping Cal the last week of the season to grab that at large bid.
Eliminate the BCS and don't use polls. Have a NCAA selection committee just like they use for Div 1-AA, II and III football. People are looking for ways to make a college football playoff system complicated, but it really isn't that difficult. It's the politics and big money from the bowls that is complicating things and will not allow this to happen anytime soon.
Why not? If Oklahoma or USC are really deserving of being champion, they will beat all comers. Anyway, that's not the system I would endorse. I would go with a 4 team playoff (the widely suggested plus one format). Pit #1 vs. #4, #2 vs. #3 in the regular bowls, then the winners meet. There you have it, a 4 team playoff. I think any team that has a legitimate claim to the national champion should be in the top 4. The only scenario that would leave someone with a legitimate gripe would be if their were 5 unbeatens, all from BCS conferences. As long as their can be a team in a big conference when every game they play, and still not have a chance to play for the National Championship, Div. I-A's national championship system will be inadequate.
One small problem with the plus one. This year came dangerously close to being the one to screw it up. If LSU and Va Tech had won their CG's then you would've had LSU, Penn St. and Va Tech with identical records and probably ranked 3,4,5. One deserving team would be left out. Who could honestly say which of these 3 should be left out of that mix? Each had won a tough conference with just one slip up along the way.
No, because the only two deserving teams this year are Texas and USC. Two of the three of LSU, Penn State, and Virginia Tech would have been given a second chance, but they are not entitled to that. Would that be fair for the 5th, no, but the 5th place team has no real claim to No. 1. My concern is making sure all teams that have a legitimate claim to No. 1 get a chance, not that everything fits nicely. If a one loss team gets left out, that sucks. But they wouldn't have been left out if they had won all their games.
One thing you're forgetting though, you want the unbeatens to play the best possible competition. Let's say you 3 un-beatens and 3 one loss teams. Who would be the only one loss team to get in? You want it to be the best of the 3 to ensure that you're playing the best teams possible.
I don't think the attitude of "You lost one game so you are toast" is fair at all. It all depends on what conference you play in and your opponents. As long as there are only 11 games in the regular season and 100+ teams in the league, there is no way to figure out who is better than who without matching them up. It is statistically impossible. So what if you made it through undefeated in 11 games. That doesn't mean that you are better than other teams in other tougher conferences that may have lost a game or two. If a two loss Georgia or AU team beats USC, Notre Dame, and UT in an 8 team play-off, then they are the best team in the land. Who is to say that USC, Notre Dame, and UT would not have 2 losses with UGA's schedule or AU's schedule? Nobody knows. That is why you have to match up the leaders from the conferences with at least an 8 team play-off.
