Playoffs are either boring (NBA, MLB, etc) or recognized by all to give a result that is madess (you know what I’m talking about). Find an indisputable champion (was KU definitely better than Memphis? Would USC have won 7 out of 10 against Texas a few years back?) that isn’t boring (seven-game series out the wazoo) is inherently impossible.

Kill the BCS. Leave the bowls. At least they’re entertaining.

Then we have something to argue about in the offseason.

I think I missed the part where the Rose Bowl conferences were the only ones who objected to the plus one.

Yeah, a playoff. That will totally happen. I, for one, can’t wait to see SEC teams play outside, north of the Mason Dixon line, in December.

As a fan of a team that’s barely sniffed a BCS bowl in the past few decades, I have a hard time working up anger for the whole BCS vs. Playoff System non-debate.

Let us not forget which conference’s commissioner gave us the BCS when we start throwing blame.

All of the states would also light up red if the poll question asked who watched the Ricky Lake Show.

Doesn’t mean it’s smart. Doesn’t mean it isn’t objected-to by the people that matter (e.g. universities, fans with double-digit IQs).

“Oh, if only we had a consensus!” Nice.

@ Clyde B:

WOOOOOOOOOOO SEC SPEED! WE GOT THERE FIRST!

Am I the only one confused by that chart on the BurntOrangeNation page? Big 10 has 10 total appearances, but an 8-9 record? Huh?

ND appears to be correct…3 appearances…0-3 record.

And if I missed something obvious…please forgive me…I’ve been up all night dodging sniper fire and disowning my spiritual mentors.

Nevermind…just figured out they don’t have a column for automatic berths…probably because they’re….automatic, but included them in the total.

D’oh!

@Erik

Just because a perfect system is impossible doesn’t mean that a better system is unreasonable or not worth trying for. A playoff or a plus-1 would result in a larger quantity of good, meaningful football. Talking about things that are settled on the field is a lot more interesting than arguing about system itself.

#1: Good games are entertaining. There’s nothing about the bowls that makes more entertaining games than a playoff could.

#2: The Rose Bowl conferences are the most stubborn objectors. Only the SEC and ACC were willing to fight them. Don’t confuse not wanting to fight morons with power with fully liking the BCS. The public stance is a lot more unified than the private one, I’ll bet.

#6: Favoring the status quo doesn’t mean its smart either. The easy route is to vote for “no change,” remember.

And also for the record, before it comes up again, playoffs do not ruin regular seasons. Extended regular seasons ruin regular season. For that matter, rewarding the playing of I-AA teams with bowl berths hurts the regular season far more than a plus one system would.

In the SEC we get plenty of “good, meaningful” football during the regular season. We even have a “playoff” at the end.

@Swindle
Well played, my speedy overlord.

So I’m thinking maybe there should be some kind of contest between the coaches to determine who plays for the glass football. Like a sack race or a pie eating contest. Kansas v. Tennessee anyone?

1. Anon – Exactly which northern teams play in December north of the Mason-Dixon line aside from a few shitty bowls?

roller skates?

Sure Roy Kramer was the head of the SEC when he spearheaded the BCS….but Roy Kramer was a double agent for the Midwestern College Football Cabal. How else can you explain an ESS EE SEE commissioner who coached football in the state of Michigan…

WE’VE ALL BEEN JIM DELANY’S PAWNS ALL ALONG

The best way to do this (and the only fair way) is to start all 116 +/- teams out in one bracket. The winners move forward, the losers get recycled into a second tier system. Better still, the WWL can turn every week into the most important week of the season.

#11, I think I disagree. If a goal is fundamentally unachievable, as I believe an entertaining indisputable championship to do, then acting as though you are working toward the goal only legitimizes what is an illegitimate exercise.

We don’t need to call it a playoff to call it fun. Let’s not delude ourselves. Let’s just watch and argue about football.

Jim Delany is probably the only person I can think of who, if he became a sports agent, would cause teams to hand out Drew Rosenhaus’s business cards to prospective draftees…

I’ve never heard anyone arguing over who’s better between Kansas and Memphis like people argue about the BCS. When it’s played on the field, even if it’s a huge upset, it counts much more than if it’s played on paper or on a computer.

Hakeem Olajuwon thinks college playoffs suck and determine nothing.

UNBEATABLE!

Anyone think it’s weird that the state of Ohio is in red on that chart? Of all the people benefitting from the bcs…

1. - see Big East teams, i.e., UCONN, Pitt, BC (although not this year), etc.

Also, Big Ten decided to extend their upcoming seasons past thanksgiving

As the ratings for the sucky non BCS “championship” games continue to tank, they’ll change the system.

I think the SEC, ACC need to get the Big 12 and Big East on board for a playoff, and stage the first round of the playoff to kick off at the same time as the Rose Bowl kickoff.

RATINGS WAR!!!! ANARCHY!!!!

1. - We had that. It was called the Bowl Alliance. It morphed into the BCS when the Big Ten and Pac 10 decided to get on board after a couple years of missing out on large payouts.

Hey… not a bad idea my good Tiger.

What about a premiership system like the English Premier League? The BCS is nothing but a division within a division anyway, so we might as well have changing shares in the BCS amongst conferences.

manbearpig!!!! lives. maybe the Rose Cabal will be stuck in a mine cave-in.

LOL, by state, Ohio has the most support for the current system at 14%. I wonder why …

MCab – the BCS is actually added such a concept this year. Conferences will be awarded automatic bids based on their running four-year performance. No more than 7 conferences and no fewer than 5 conferences will get auto bids, but it will allow for a non-Big Six conference to earn an auto bid.

Note: this doesn’t override the contracts that conferences have with bowls. The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 10, and SEC will always have de facto auto bids as long as they have their contracts, so really it’s only a system that could revoke the Big East’s auto bid or supply an auto bid or two to the smaller conferences.

so espn.com public opinion polls are suddenly scientific representations of what American thinks? I used to work in a polling place (gallup), and I can tell that there is very little reason to put stock in polls conducted without any kind of sample control. Just because internet savvy 18-24 years olds (the kind of people who vote on espn polls, in other words) feel one way about something doesn’t mean that EVERYONE does.

I’m pretty sure standard offline polls have been taken on the BCS vs. Playoffs issue, with similar results.

So what, people are stupid and shortsighted and don’t know what is best for them.

1. I don’t think it was the big payouts that pushed the “tens” to the BCS, it was the fact that we couldn’t have a true national championship game in 1998 because Michigan and the other Big/Pac Ten honks wouldn’t play in any other bowl other than the Rose Bowl and against each other. So Nebraska had to play Tennessee because it couldn’t play Michigan, ending up with both teams winning handly and we, the fans, ultimately had crap. Michigan Morons.

I wished the voters would have punished Michigan and the Big Ten that year for their bastardization of College Football and gave Nebraska both titles.