IMAGINE THE SPLENDOR

I just don’t agree with this argument. You discredit these hypothetical matchups, but UNC/Radford in the first round isn’t exactly the highlight game of the season, either. The reason March Madness is so orgasmarific is that it submerges you in the sport, and provides a clear answer to who’s the national champion. Perhaps Memphis was better last year, or UNC. But they should have won it then. They had a chance and blew it. With the current bowl system, everyone doesn’t have a chance, and at the end of the day, almost every season devolves into a nationwide bar argument. Plus, you could still keep many bowls while a 8- or 16-team playoff went on.

And don’t hate on “One Shining Moment.” It’s vanilla-tastic.

Cue the bazillion “here’s how the playoff should work in my scenario” comments. Yeah, your playoff is the awesomest.

If you play your seeds to the logical conclusion (with my picks), then

OU would play PSU
UF would play Texas Tech
UT would play Utah
Tide would play USC

Then

UF would play USC
OU would play UT (again)

Assuming UF beats USC, then we would either play OU or Texas

We have come full circle with a real probability that UF would be playing OU

Even more interesting is if you play it out;
your final four would be Oklahoma vs Texas and Florida vs. Bama. (along the way you’d get to see florida vs ohio state, USC vs. Bama. Utah vs. Texas and OK vs. PSU.
the Big 12 screwed the pooch on Okahoma/Texas but aside from that, we all got about the same match-ups. Of course you can argue that USC would beat bama, beat texas, and then be florida vs. usc in the final (it’s possible, but screw USC anyway).
So, you look at the conference championship games as the great 8 match-ups, it’s not that bad a system we have now, minus voters/poor non-conference scheduling screwing it up.

That right there is all the proof you need that a 16-team playoff in football would be like watching a turtle screw a doorknob. I will reluctantly concede that 8 may be necessary just so certain conferences will STFU, but let’s be honest, how many times are there more than 4 teams with a legit claim to be the best in the country? Hell, how often do we even get as many as four?

You know what would be interesting – ignore the playoffs, populate the bowls the way they were back in 1990 (champs only with tie-ins, other spot free to whoever’s around except for the Rose) and see if you don’t wind up with a similar situation and better games besides.

The ruination of the postseason isn’t the BCS – it’s the tie-in system that has top-10 teams locked into nubs matchups days before New Year’s. (the 2nd place Pac-10 team in the Holiday Bowl, still, is proof that the Pac-10 doesn’ care about football.)

You’re goddamn right I’m blowing off work. Being in IT means never having to sacrifice priority for your streaming traffic =)

Assuming seeds hold through the first round, producing the matchups listed at the top of hobeg8r’s post, I’d be quite happy to watch those four games. 16 teams is excessive. I admit interest in an 8-team playoff.

It is a good shrubbery.

Orson,

I too used to be agnostic, but after the Obama’s remarks about a playoff, I think I finally saw the light.

The simple fact that gets overlooked is that the ONLY method to determine without doubt the most deserving NC is to have some omniscient being come down and decree it, I’m not holding my breath.

The current system ends up with people like Utah St whining they didn’t get a fair shake, and a playoff? You’re talking about playoffs? Playoffs? Don’t talk about playoffs.

There can be only one “Best” team each season. Any multi game playoff actually makes it more difficult for that team to win. By pure chance, they will loose sometimes to an inferior team. Just off the top of my head, some teams that knocked out teams who they probably wouldn’t have in a long series: Giants over Pats, George Mason over UConn, Nova over Georgetown, Pats over Rams, Broncos over Packers, etc.

You can debate any of the above, but Vegas had my back on all of them, and Vegas is still in business for a reason. So does a playoff guarantee a more deserving champion will be crowned? Who knows, but I doubt it does significantly better, possibly even worse than the BCS.

I for one enjoy being sick to my stomach from late August through early December every Saturday. That sort of masochistic pleasure can only be derived when EVERY game matters, and don’t try and tell me that knowing a powerhouse like UF could afford an Ole Miss loss (or even two in a 16 team playoff) wouldn’t drain the drama of the regular season.

If I want a meaningless regular season with a compelling post season, I have basically every other major sport that anyone watches. If I want an Uber meaningful regular season with a so-so post season, I got College Football. Can’t we put the system on the endangered species list so it will be protected?

/stepping of soapbox

Utah, not Utah St, sorry

also, lose not loose.

I knew I shouldn’t have had Corrine Brown edit my speech

Here’s my playoff scenario.
Cheerleader (or dance team, if you’re LSU) blowjob contest to determine MNC. Don’t think that won’t draw any interest at all, mainly because it’ll be torrented to death.

robert wins the internets. Your playoff scenario really is the awesomest.

I saw a friend hit a single number on the roulette wheel at foxwwods. Turned $100 into $3500. I also saw him turn $500 in slot machine winnings into $0 in Vegas, so there may be something to Orson’s musings.

The turtle screwing a doorknob comment, above, says it all. A football tournament would suck. All the tournament scenarios are either unworkable or self-defeating.

My idea of having EVERY team in a tournament that begins in week one is unworkable.

Anything with 16 teams or less is going to be open to claims that it is unfair; that is self-defeating for all the guys who HAVE TO KNOW who’s #1. (which team sits out: Texas, Oklahoma or Texas Tech?)

I suffered through a similar pain when I realized the same thing a while back (less does mean more for college football). As great as it would be to watch it for an extra 2-3 months, the nervous excitement that comes with fall practice commencement and classic game replays on local stations and the accompanying sadness that begins the second week of January does factor a lot into why the sport is so engaging and such a big deal, at least to me. That doesn’t mean the period between the Superbowl and March Madness does not suck, because it does, or that more college football wouldn’t improve this dead zone. But at what cost to the elation of the fall?

I saw the stupidity of play-offs when I watched some FCS football and saw the rematches that took place. I was rather disgusted because the idiot statement of “they won when it mattered” nullifies the regular season.

I agree with North 2. Give me a regular season that causes me to watch 13 plus hours games on a fall Saturday and allows me to stuff my face full of salty food and sugary drinks.

Agreed on scarcity = good, and mark another vote for North 2’s comments @ #8.

I don’t even have a problem with the BCS, I just loathe the BCS championship game because of the logic that a game with so many flaws in the way it picks participants can’t possibly crown an unflawed champion, barring the only 13-0 team remaining in the country type of team. Although the BCS has worked in the past, the events that unfolded this season screamed for the old format of using the polls and allowing for split titles.

And Vandy J- the Pac cares about football, it’s just our fossil of a commissioner that doesn’t. Luckily he’s stepping down at the end of this academic year so hopefully the runner up to the title of Pac-10 Champions presented by USC can play on 1/1 or later.

We all know how Orson feels about roulette wheels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQxldWHleZk

This would be much more … well, everything, if it had sound. Stupid WMG bitches.

I haven’t been following any of the arguments for or against a playoff since it’s all pure speculation and posturing at this point, but here would be my (most awesomest) idea:

Top 12 teams are in the playoff. This is basically everyone that is eligible for an at-large BCS game anyway. Top 4 teams get a bye. 4 rounds starting in December and “final 4” and championship game could still be played on New Years and Jan 8th.

Cons: Teams have to play 3-4 more games, and our poor fragile student athletes will get hurt.

Thoughts?

As a big college basketball, I feel a bit oligated to question the scarcity argument. Perhaps some of the above protectionist comments stem from loyalty to BCS schools. The frustration felt for the Utahs, Boise St, Louisville back when they were in C-USA, is that the BCS/non-BCS dichotomy creates the adults’ table from the kids’ fo rthe MNC. I would agree with the general uselessness of a playoof outside of a +1 model if only BCS schools are included. Unfortunately there are approximately 60 other schools in Div 1 football that presumably have an equal right to the crystal egg at the end of the season. They should go ahead and play a non-BCS championship game or some such…

But, as Mr Swindle points out over and again, the BCS is a cabal, and cabals are occasianally useful. After all, without them, how else would I get rid of all these blood diamonds?

I like 8 teams with no autobids or 16 teams with all 11 conference champs getting autobids, but sixteen teams with no autobids (or only BCS 6 autobids) is fine; 8 teams with BCS 6 autobids is problematic, because quite often at least one BCS conference champ is well outside the top 8, and there are more than two legit title contenders among conference runner-ups, ND, and mid-majors.

Having said that, I don’t see what’s so bad about the layout you presented. I mean, many first-round NCAA tournament games are uninteresting. I’d bet on two or three lower seeds advancing in the first round (my guess is two of Oklahoma State, Ohio State, and TCU move on), Suppose that all happens, and you’ve got #1 Oklahoma/#8 Penn State,#2 Florida/#10 Ohio State (Revenge game!), #3 Texas/#11 TCU, and #13 Oklahoma State/#5 USC (even if ‘Bama wins, no one really thinks they’d beat USC anymore, do they? Didn’t think so) in the quarterfinals. The second round games probably end up more lopsided than the openers, really, but there’s a lot of potential for good games here (best chance for an upset is PSU/Oklahoma, but I think the higher seeds move on.

So we get #1 Oklahoma/#5 USC and #2 Florida/#3 Texas in the Final 4. Two potentially very good games, though there’s an outside chance USC and Florida run away with them. Certainly they’re likely to win. So we get the USC/Florida game we really should have had.

This is how the past 4 yrs have looked basically in the top 10 in no particular order from each conference

Big 10-PSU or tOSU, SEC-Florida, Big 12-OU or TX,ACC-Who cares?,PAC-10=USC,MWC=Utah,WAC=Boise St

So at the end of the year, you have USC sitting on the outside wanting to get in because they dropped a game to Stanford, UCLA, or Oregon St. Thats what this is about, trying to satisfy the NFL farm club. Motto of the BCS is : LOSE EARLY, NOT LATE, or you will pay for it.
Ask Texas. I dont think a NFL style playoff works either. A Plus One is the only way to go after the bowl games since travel and blah blah blah. Thats when the BCS works against you, if you are in a conference that has a Championship game, like the SEC- it penalizes you-SEE Alabama, finished reg season 12-0 and had to play Florida. When you dont have too, it helps you-see tOSU. Who was the better “Giant Killer”, Oregon St, Utah, or Ole Miss?
Who would win outta them 3? I think Ole Miss. What hurt USC was the fact that the perception was that the PAC-10 was down due to the MWC pwning the PAC-10. Even with that, USC will always be the “best team in America, playing ball in November in Pete Carrolls mind”. I foresee Texas vs Florida in the BCS. Pete Carroll wants a Notre Dame like clause, if USC finishes 3rd, they get to play the winner of the 1 vs 2 Fake BCS game, and play the real contender , like Clubber Lang=USC, cause them fools"are always ducking me", not no “paper champion like Rocky Balboa=Florida”. I think it makes more sense to replace tOSU or OU if they are ranked #1-3 with USC. At least you know USC will come to play against Florida.

I will officially stop saying, “But NO ONE is seriously suggesting a 16 game playoff, so stop beating that strawman” in these threads. (I like 8 teams without autobids, but with a better algorithm than the current BCS formula for rankings.)

#16: FBS teams nonconference schedules significantly reduce the number of rematches. I’m sure the Selection Committee will also tweak things somewhat to minimize rematches in their seeding. Besides, in an eight-team playoff, the only possible rematch before the championship game would have been Texas (having beaten Utah) and Texas Tech (having beaten Florida).

LMAO at Penn St vs. Boise St gamblersanonymous. For the record, Orson, I’d put $100 on Boise State money line +230

They should just make it official that whomever wins the SEC plays for the BCS Title and they rotate what conference plays for second every year.

24

What, and screw the SEC’s second-place team out of a shot to play for the MNC?
No sir.

@ 25

I’m sure 2004 Auburn would have loved that setup…

Course I’m not sure if it would have worked in 05, or 02, or 01, or 00, or most of the 90s…

The delegation from Cal doesn’t give a damn whether anyone implements a playoff or not, as long as they don’t close the door on Cal finally ending its Rose Bowl drought.