Brackets make everything better, right?

Even if you’re not a fan of the BCS, it’s hard to miss what weekends like the last one do for our appreciation of college football.

… In the end, I hate the idea of an LSU-Alabama rematch in the title game. However: Every other big contender had their shot to keep winning and play their way over Alabama. Every one. And even knowing all that, they couldn’t get it done, largely against inferior competition.

That is arguably the most compelling thing about college football — not championship contenders rising to the occasion, but championship contenders stumbling unexpectedly.

If the challenge to voters and fans and the system is to find the best two teams to pit in the national title game, the match-up is LSU vs. Alabama. Yes, even if they played before.

They’ve been settling things on the field for twelve weeks now.  Forgive me if I don’t grok what an extended playoff brings to the table on top of that.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, College Football

211 responses to “Brackets make everything better, right?

  1. Careful Brad

    Anybody have the tape of Herbstreit saying you have to win the conference? We need to make that thing go viral.

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      And Lou Holtz spitting all over himself while shouting about the Dawgs in 2007: “THEY DIDN”T EVEN WIN THEIR DIVISION!” Either LSU or Bama ain’t gonna win THEIR division, either.

      • The Lone Stranger

        Tell the voters — who are the coaches(USAToday) and ex-coaches & dignitaries(Harris). As I see it it’s upon them to recognize the importance of winning a conference (or division) and judge accordingly. You’ll notice that even considering OSU’s loss at Iowa St., the mainframes still have the cowboys placed behind LSU in second position.

  2. At least Oregon and Oklahoma are out of the picture, this week. Bama is going to walk to the BCSC game while LSU has to play in the SECC. Sometimes life is not fair.

    Craig James was spinning how Oklahoma is the best team in the country on Friday night. I guess that’s because his son’s team beat Oklahoma. I don’t even see how that would have been possible anyway. A home loss to Texas Tech takes you out of the picture, end of story. Even with the loss to Baylor, somehow Oklahoma is still #9 in the BCS.

    Even during the discussion on Saturday the WWL was spinning how it’s not about who you lost too. It’s your body of work. Bwaahhh?

  3. edawg

    Here’s who we currently allow to pick the 2 teams to play for the title:

    – 59 coaches who watch very few other games (some/most of these are actually filled out by some low level graduate assistant)
    – 115 old farts who watch very few games
    – 6 computers that don’t watch any other games
    – the ESPN talking heads who hold Jedi-like mind control over the 59 coaches/graduate students and 115 old farts

    Yeah, this is a great way of doing it.

    • I think the Coaches Poll sucks, too, but is it really that hard to identify the two best teams in the country this morning?

      • Scorpio Jones, III

        Hold that thought.

        • AusDawg85

          Exactly. If LSU wins out, we clearly know #1 and should question why they even have to play a bowl game. If they lose 1, then you don’t have a clear #1 & #2 but a jumbled mess. If LSU loses to Arky, and Bama wins the SECCG, then Bama likely goes to #1, but who is really #2?

          I don’t see that anything is clear until after Dec. 3 at best. I don’t think an enhanced playoff fixes this (who is #4 or #5?) but the current voting structure with computers (?!…really, computers tell us something?!) really sucks.

      • edawg

        This week is the exception to the rule. 2 teams stand out above everyone else. That is very rarely the case. That won’t even be the case next week if Arkansas wins on Friday. Besides, you’re not deciding anything on the field. Most of these teams don’t play each other and have very few, if any, common opponents.

        This system is a joke. No other sport (college or professional) does it this way. Hell, the other 3 college football divisions don’t even do it this way.

        Awful, just awful. No other way to describe it.

        • Hackerdog

          Even a playoff wouldn’t “settle it on the field” in the manner you describe. If #1 and #2 don’t play each other, it’s also true that #7 and #8 don’t play each other.

          As for the system being flawed, no other system tries to crown the best team as the champion. All other sports simply eliminate bad teams from the postseason and then see which team can win X games in a row. That’s definitive, but I would rather have the champion be the best team.

      • Yes, identifying #1 is easy. #2, not so much. And even if you declare them 1 and 2, since 1 already beat 2, why if the regular season is a defacto playoff and so almighty important, do they have to do it again? And after beating them on their home turf no less.

        • And even if you declare them 1 and 2, since 1 already beat 2, why if the regular season is a defacto playoff and so almighty important, do they have to do it again?

          Personally, I agree with that. The absolute best playoff scenario I’ve seen was posted by a drunk LSU fan back in 2007 who said they should tailor the postseason to the realities of each year. But there’s no way TV would agree to that much uncertainty.

          • Mayor of Dawgtown

            Isn’t that what the old bowl system was before the BCS?

            • Not exactly. They didn’t try to match 1 and 2 in the old days.

              • Mayor of Dawgtown

                I appreciate what you are saying Senator but I believe that the rankings are cooked and that we do not actually get the best 2 teams playing in the BCSNCG. Rather the BCS and the TV guys get 2 teams that best blow the ratings off the charts. It is all about the $$$$$$$. Look back at previous games and see how many times the truly best 2 teams actually played in that game. Not many. The old system worked at least as well as what we have now.

                • The old system worked at least as well as what we have now.

                  Ladies and gentlemen, your 1984 national champs, the BYU Cougars.

                  Sorry, Mayor, while the BCS has plenty of warts, one thing it’s clearly improved upon is to get a legit matchup of #1 an #2.

          • Personally, if LSU runs the table (since their game against Arkansas, and then if they get through that, against us in Atlanta, aren’t givens), but if they ran the table, we should offer them Houston as a sacrifice. They beat Bama, so Bama doesn’t deserve a shot because as the current system is, I disagree with the idea that someone who can’t win their conference should go even if it’s happened twice, especially when they lost to #1. So barring a worthy #2, let Houston go if they can end undefeated too. It kills the crying by the Boises, Utahs, etc as we’ll show they can get their shot. And it allows LSU to simply prove their dominance in a coronation of their crown.

            • Tom

              Yup – that’s another good reason to let Houston in.

            • Ty webb

              “especially when they lost to #1.” So you think it’s better if they lost to a 5-7 team? I actually agree that that’s the way it works, but how the hell does that make any sense?

              • “So you think it’s better if they lost to a 5-7 team?”
                What did I say that would possibly give you that impression.

                And how it makes sense is #1 already beat them the first time, why do they have to beat them, again, to win a national title? In this regular season is important and those games matter, how does that make sense if beating someone in the regular season only means you have to do it all over again in January?

            • I was thinking the exact same thing . It makes no sense to make LSU play the extra game ,SECCG, and then beat the same team a second time. LET LSU dismantle Houston or Boise State and shut that crew up once and for all.

  4. Dante

    If it’s really being settled on the field then why isn’t undefeated Houston ranked 1 or 2? And just to be clear, I agree with Houston’s ranking but I disagree with the premise that college football settles enough on the field to reliably yield a 1 vs 2 match-up.

    • If you agree with Houston’s ranking, then I don’t get your point.

      • The talk I kept hearing this weekend was that Bama has only played three half way decent teams and came out 2-1. The argument is that the SEC has two great teams, one good team, and everyone else sucks so Bama is getting a really easy path to the BCS championship. Especially if LSU beats Arky Friday.

        I am jaded after 2007 and WWL keeping us out of the BCSC. Bama should not get another shot if they don’t win the conference. Also, from a political standpoint everyone else in the country will refer to my point up above if you have Bama/LSU playing again. Take the best “other” conference champ and put them up against LSU (assuming they win out).

      • edawg

        The point is that Houston hasn’t lost a game yet but has ZERO chance of playing for the title. That’s not settling it on the field.

        Anyone remember 2006 when Ohio State and Michigan were “CLEARLY” the best 2 teams in the country? Florida almost never got their shot to beat the ever-loving snot out of THE Ohio State University.

        • Puffdawg

          Despite what the talking heads wanted, the BCS decided Florida was the better option for the BCSNCG in 2006. Wouldn’t that be a testament to the efficiency of the very system you are denigrating?

          • JHT

            It’s not a testament if the point is that it came very close to never happening.

            Other non-testaments:
            – Nebraska making the title game in 2001 while not winning the Big 12 North
            – Oklahoma making the title game in 2003 while not winning the Big 12
            – Auburn not making the title game in 2004 while going undefeated and winning the SEC

            • Puffdawg

              I don’t see your point. The purpose of the BCS is to match up the best two teams. In 2006, it did. And yet you’re using 2006 as an example of BCS’s shortcomings. I fail to see the connection.

              • JHT

                Then you’re stupid. What can I say?

                • Puffdawg

                  LOL. Guilty as charged I supopose. You win, I lose. To recap: the BCS in 2006 failed because it ALMOST didn’t place Florida in the National Championship game, despite the fact that it DID place Florida in the National Championship game. Got it.

                  On a side note: when I woke up this morning, I almost didn’t get out of the bed and come to work, but I did. I’m still employed.

                  • 4.0 Point Stance

                    I agree with puffdawg. Basically Kirk Herbstreit, who is not affiliated with the BCS, said something on TV. The BCS voters did not follow Herbstreit’s advice. It turned out the voters were right and Herbstreit was wrong. Now we’re claiming that Herbstreit being wrong should be held against the BCS?

                  • JHT

                    Yes, the fact that it very easily could have happened makes the BCS a failure. Not that hard to get really. Good luck driving home today.

                    • Ty webb

                      In the Pats-Giants Super Bowl, the Giants – who were clearly the champion, since they won the game – very easily could have lost if the helmet catch didn’t happen. That would have made the Super Bowl a failure per your logic.

                    • Puffdawg

                      SMH. Agree to disagree. Thanks for the well wishes.

        • But the Gators did – so much for your point there.

          If you set up a rule that every undefeated team in the country gets to play for the national title, regardless of what conference they play in or what schedule they face, what do you think will happen?

          I’m sensitive to the Auburn 2004 argument, so a plus one doesn’t bother me. But a 16-team tourney? What for?

          • edawg

            At least you’re admitting there is some merit to a 4 team playoff. That’s a start.

            When did I say every undefeated team gets to play for a title? I do say give them a shot in a playoff. Decide it on the field like the rest of the sporting world.

            And please don’t act like 2004 is the only year that the BCS has had problems determining the championship matchup. Spin, spin, spin…

            • My preference would be for a conference champs only format, if they ever get the superconference thing done. The real problem is that there are too many D-1 football teams.

              If you get a shot in a playoff, aren’t you getting to play for a title?

              And since we’re doing the “when did I say” deal here, when did I say 2004 was “the only year”?😉

              • Mayor of Dawgtown

                Division I needs to split into one level with 4 superconferences of 16 teams each and the rest in a kind of mid-tier division under the top division but above D-IAA. Your model works then.

          • so +1? How would that work this year? Make LSU beat Bama, again. And then have to play one more time just for poops and giggles after showing clearly throughout the year they were unbeatable?

            • Again, no argument with your logic. I’m simply convinced at this point that making sure an undefeated major D-1 program doesn’t get excluded should have a higher priority than making a school retake ground it’s already won. YMMV, of course.

          • 4.0 Point Stance

            Speaking of setting up schedules to ensure undefeated seasons, didn’t Auburn play two 1-aa teams in 2004? For that reason alone I’m not ass sympathetic to their arguments as I otherwise would’ve been.

      • Dante

        My point is that on-field play isn’t enough to determine 1 vs. 2 because not all schedules are created equally. Houston was the example I used because no matter how well they play, there is no path to the national title game. If it were truly settled on the field then there would be something Houston could do on the field to get to that game.

        Even leaving Houston out of the discussion, we’re likely not getting a 1 vs 2 now. In the BCS era, the average margin of victory in the title game is 13.9 points. If we’re really seeing a 1 vs. 2, then a 2 TD win should be the exception, not the norm.

    • Being undefeated against the #116 toughest schedule in the country doesn’t carry a lot of water. Georgia has played 6 games against opposition better than the toughest team Houston has played (UCLA, whom they beat by 4 at home). Georgia is 4-2 versus that competition, and they have a seventh team this week.

      They can only play the teams they schedule, but they can also only be judged based on their schedule. And, honestly, if there were an 8-team playoff this year, would Houston be in it? Maybe. If there were a 16-team playoff, none of the upsets this past weekend would have eliminated teams from a shot at the title… which devalues the regular season.

  5. Tduga1

    I am not a playoff advocate but the bottom line is the current system does not create an undisputed national champion. We will never know for sure if Bama is better than Stanford, Boise, Virginia Tech, Houston ( I know, I know, but remember when Utah rolled Bama a few years back?)

    Now I don’t have a better solution and for that reason I understand why the current system stays in place. Even if there were an eight team playoff the above teams would not neccesarily play. I am just saying I understand why all of the one loss teams will have fans upset when the season ends if they end with one loss.

    My hope for this year is that UGA beats LSU for two reasons. One, I love the dawgs. Two, who the hell do you put in the title game? Does Bama go and not LSU? How do you justify that?

    • We will never know for sure if Bama is better than Stanford, Boise, Virginia Tech, Houston…

      There’s never been a playoff invented that answers that kind of question.

      • DawgPhan

        Exactly…Playoffs arent about deciding who the best team is. They are about giving teams a second shot, bracket pools, and 1 v 16 match-ups.

        it would at least be an honest discussion if the playoff people would just admit that they are only interested in filling out an end of season bracket in their office and cheering for underdogs.

        • it would at least be an honest discussion if the playoff people would just admit that they are only interested in filling out an end of season bracket in their office and cheering for underdogs.


          It’s being told that my subjectivity about the postseason is somehow inferior to that of extended playoff proponents that bugs me.

          • And it would be an honest discussion if the non playoff people were willing to admit this system has just as many flaws, if not more so, but they prefer the status quo and keeping things as they are.

            A +1 doesn’t work depending on the year. A 4 team playoff doesn’t work, depending on the year. A BCS 1/2 game doesn’t work, depending on the year. It’d be nice if the non-playoff people got off their high horse, quit spitting out the same old, tired, and extremely flawed arguments, and just admitted they like the uniqueness of the system instead of coming up with worthless crap to justify their flawed preference.

            • DawgPhan

              Depends on what you call “working”. I would say that the system works every year. The only goal of the BCS is to match #1 against #2 in a game. Every year it has done that. I dont know what you call working but something that does exactly what it is supposed to do every single year, I would call that working.

              Besides the mantra of the pro-BCS crowd is “best regular season in sports”. Anything that maintains the best regular season in sports is what I want. If that isnt being honest about what I want and my love of the status quo, you are again working out of a different dictionary.

              • Yes, it puts #1 and #2 according to it’s rankings in a final season showdown. The problem is #1 and #2 “according to it’s rankings”. I wouldn’t call Nebraska in 2001 being included as “working”, not including Oklahoma in 2003. Leaving a 2004 Auburn high and dry isn’t “working”. Inviting FSU in 2000 after they lost to #3 Miami earlier in the year, and both had a single loss, isn’t “working” to me. Including a rematch of Bama/LSU after the Tide lost on their home turf to LSU isn’t “working” to me.

            • Macallanlover

              Agree Mr. Sanchez, the antis are acting as if we have something now. Truthfully, as a limited playoff proponent, I would rather do away with the current charade we have for the faux title because people really believe we have a system that recognizes a legit #1. At least in the pre-BCS days everyone acknowledged we needed a way….we still do.

              And why does the Senator mischaracterize it as people favoring an “extended playoff”? I know very few who want that but that gives him some safe ground to go into his Nostradamus act and pretend he can see the future. College football is different than the other sports, it can be controlled if folks would start working on a better system and stop accepting the mess we have now.

          • PNWDawg

            That’s funny. I’m for playoffs but could care less about office pools and brackets.

            This year I concede it appears LSU and Alabama are far removed from the rest and playoffs could be less compelling. But what’s wrong with cheering for the underdogs?

            “It’s being told that my subjectivity about the postseason is somehow inferior to that of extended playoff proponents that bugs me.”

            Of course it does.

        • Monday Night Frotteur

          This is one of the least intelligent posts one could make about this topic. The logical rebuttal is, “playoff opponents are a bunch of sore loser Braves fans who want to avenge their boring baseball team’s constant underperformance in the postseason.”

          1 v. 16 games are nice (and expanding the playoffs is less about second chances than giving some new teams first chances), but the hardest argument for you to overcome is the fact that a 16 team playoff (11 auto bids, 5 at large bids) not only increases the meaning of the regular season for *most teams,* it also creates four fantastic weeks of high value college football. Do you hate entertainment?

      • Tduga1

        I believe that I referred to this when I said that even if there were a playoff the above teams would not neccesarily play. My point is simply that the current system leaves a lot to be desired.

    • Puffdawg

      “Does Bama go and not LSU?”

      Why wouldn’t UGA go?

      • Puffdawg

        I might add I can’t stand the BCS discussion before the season over but I suppose it’s necessary. However, we do have a game in Atlanta this weekend that isn’t in a Dome we might want to worry about. Seems like every time a team wanders into the discussion their team loses the very next week, with the exception of the Greatest One Loss Team of Our Era.

        • I don’t think you need to worry about me paying insufficient attention to the NATS this week. Stuff like this makes it easy.

          • Yep, those guys are pretty damned pathetic. Finding that site in the last year has made me want to win this game more than any other on the schedule just to avoid the insufferableness of that fanbase.

          • Comin' Down The Track

            Oh, Senator. Thank you for that. I was unaware that my hatred could grow any blacker, none more black if you will, but here we are.

            • Puffdawg

              Hatred? How could you feel anything but sympathy after reading that? It is pathetic how consumed those dolts are with their hatred of UGA. I really truly feel sorry for those idiots.

              • Comin' Down The Track

                Hatred. No pity. No sympathy. No quarter. No prisoners. Hatred.

                • Puffdawg

                  LOL. Fair enough. I don’t like GT, but I have many friends who went there and are GT fans, and who aren’t on the pathetic level of the Stingtalkers. I respect my friends and they respect me, and they are saddened by the death of any human being, regardless of their allegiances. I just couldn’t help but feel sorry for some of the people posting over there.

          • UGAfoo

            Cheap shots at a legend. Jarvis shall show no mercy upon your football team.

          • PNWDawg

            But this would be meaningless in a playoff scenario where we already have a spot guaranteed?

    • Dave

      well actually, it does in the same way the NFL does. The rules are set before the season starts and everyone follows those rules. At the end of the year in college the winner of the BCS titel game IS the champion. In the NFL, the winner of the Super Bowl IS the champion. Were the NY Giants better than the Patriots the year they beat them in the Super Bowl? Personally, I would say no, but the rules say NY were the champs.

      • Ruteger

        The only difference in the rules between the NFL and CFB though is that in the NFL, you know 100% (in terms of what you need to do on the field) what it will take for you to reach the Superbowl. CFB is the only sport that I know of where you have no idea at the beginning of the season what it will take for you to win a championship, or if it’s even possible no matter what you do. I’m not really a playoff proponent anymore (because I’ll admit the BCS gets it right way more than it gets credit for), but there is something to be said for the notion of knowing in the NFL that’s all on your team whether orbit they win a championship. Just win, baby. In CFB, it’s just win, and hope no one else does too, because they might be perceived as just winning better than you.

        • Hackerdog

          The only time an undefeated team, with a respectable schedule was excluded from the title game was 2004 Auburn. And that year, their schedule was inferior to USC and Oklahoma.

          But the NFL is just as reliant an external events as college football. Only the ’72 Dolphins ran the table. Every other team that made the playoffs in the history of the NFL has lost at least one game. That means that they become scoreboard watchers of what the teams in their division do. If those teams lose, then that’s good. If they lose to teams outside their division, that matters differently than losing to teams within their division. Getting to the playoffs depends just as much on your schedule and the strength of your division as it does in college football.

          For all the hand wringing about the subjectivity of the BCS in deciding who gets a shot at the championship, the recipe for success is very simply. Play a difficult schedule and win every game you play. That will put you in the championship game. If start losing games, then you have to start watching the scoreboard. Just like they do in the NFL.

          • Ruteger

            Sure, the reality of the situation is both the NFL and CFB have a certain amount of scoreboard watching and imperfect seasons most of the time, but the reality is also that 100% of undefeated regular season NFL teams (including the Patriots a couple of years back) got to play for the title. <100% have in college. In the NFL, 100% of division or conference winners got to play for the title, in CFB mug less than that. So taking undefeated seasons out of it, in the NFL you know if you win your division you'll qualify for the post season where if you win everything there you'll be a champion. You know that if you sweep your division opponents, you only have to win X amount of other games to qualify. In CFB you know nothing, other than what probably or might qualify you. Unless your a non-BCS school and you know nothing will qualify you.

            Like I said, I'm not really pro-playoff because the BCS does seem to get it right most of the time, but I just disagree that there are rules (from an on the field perspective) in CFB for how to win a championship, like there is in the NFL.

            • Hackerdog

              I understand wanting undefeated teams to play for the title. Although 2004 is the only year that I recognize as being a legitimate complaint. And even that year, Auburn played a weaker schedule than USC or Oklahoma. So their #3 BCS ranking was fair.

              But I don’t understand your insistence that certainty exists in areas where it doesn’t. Yes, division winners make the NFL playoffs. But once you lose a game in the NFL, winning your division depends as much on what the other teams in your division do as what you do. How is that different than scoreboard watching in college?

              • Ruteger

                The reality is that you’re right, there is an element of scoreboard watching at some point for most NFL teams every year. The difference is that every team at some point in the year knows what the have to doin the field to reach the playoffs. Green Bay still knows. San Francisco still knows. I’m sure there are others too. And every other team at some point or other knew until they started losing enoughgames. In CFB, no team ever knows. LSU is the only team now that knows what they have to do from here on out, but week one they didn’t know that they’d have to do. They could only say “let’s try and when all our games and hope that’s enough”.

                So anyway, that’s my only point, that there is certainty at he beginning of the NFL season for everyone, and for some throughout the year. In CFB there is none ever really. That’s not to say certainty is the way to go, because it definitely keeps us entertained watching CFB games.

          • Puffdawg

            Slow clap

        • Puffdawg

          Isn’t this kind of what keeps us coming back? This very discussion is what makes college football so fun.

          • Ruteger

            I agree. That’s the difference between watching with great interest to see if USC can take down Oregon or if Baylor can take out Oklhahoma, as opposed to a mild interest in the close Tampa/Green Bay game.

          • The Lone Stranger

            Totally agree here.

          • MDWM. The epitome of arguing for arguing’s sake.

            • Puffdawg

              Yea, because if we actually gave a shit we wouldn’t even talk about it.

              • There’s enough passion for respective colleges and the game itself that we’d talk about one thing if not another. But saying we do it this way because the “very discussion is what makes college football so fun” both ignores the many other areas that make college football the great sport it is, and also as said is the epitome of wanting to argue for arguing’s sake.

        • The Lone Stranger

          Most years the formula is just to win every game. And in a case like Houston this year, the AD is always free to schedule some programs with a little more bite to strengthen computer and pollster evaluations. Granted, many opponents are filled way out in advance, but I think a skilled AD can gauge the relative strength of national football playing schools.

          Then again, there is the judgment of the AD that also plays a part. Much as McGarrity proved this year and a couple unforseen injuries drove home. (vs. Boise St.), a prospective positive for the squad can turn real bad, real quick. Maybe UGa just got greedy for exposure after such a lacklust 2010.

          All that aside, I am not set to pencil-in Houston just yet. La. Tech had them outplayed for 3+ quarters only to lose by a slim point. Now, Tulsa (+3) has them at home and are similarly looking to get to their conference title game.

          • Mayor of Dawgtown

            Maybe McGarity was setting up CMR to fire him apres le season only CMR fooled him and won the SEC East instead.

      • When it mattered, the Giants WERE the better team. They played head to head, and won. In my opinion, that is how one proves “better”.

        • Puffdawg

          So the REGULAR SEASON matchup in the last week of the season was MEANINGLESS?

          Thank you, you’re Honor. I rest my case.

          • Yes, it was, as both sides knew walking in to that game.

            And a rematch of LSU/Bama makes their earlier season match up any more meaningful?

            The defense rests.

          • And it’d be your Honor, not you are Honor.

            • Puffdawg

              While we are correcting eachother, it’d be: Your Honor. Good catch though. Thank you for that. I hate it when people muck up the yours and the theirs.

              And yes, a rematch of Bama/LSU would render their original matchup meaningless, in hindsight. However, with the precedent of a rematch not existing, the intensity and meaning of that game at the time it was played was much much higher than it would have been if we had a playoff system where both teams knew they’d probably get in. Win, you’re likely in. Lose you’re out. There is no way the loser of that game could have realistically expected to get a rematch in the BCSNCG based on the fact that it has never happened in the 13 years of the BCS. I say realistically because most Alabama fans are not realistic.

              Not to mention the rematch has yet to happen. There is still a lot of football to be played.

              • The fact that it could happen, and is being argued to happen, shows the flaws inherent in the system. The same flaws that arrived in 2000, when a 1 loss FSU made it over the 1 loss Miami that beat them, or in 2001 when a Nebraska team that couldn’t win it’s own division played for a title, or in 2003 when an Oklahoma team that lost their conference title game made the championship.

                • Hackerdog

                  You’re arguing that allowing Alabama to be one of two teams to play for the national championship would be flawed, but allowing Alabama to be one of several teams to play for the national championship wouldn’t be?

    • Bryant Denny

      Utah rolling Alabama in the Sugar Bowl shouldn’t give credence to anything. That was an uninspired team playing in a “meaningless” game against a team trying to prove something.

  6. Nate Dawg

    So if everything holds par – bammer beats the barn and LSU beats arky (and maybe even us, or hell, they proly don’t even have to beat us, evidently we’ll let that slide as well…) you get LSU vs bammer for all the marbles. So all bammer had to do to get to the MNC was loose a conference game at home…and be Alabama of course. Yeah, that sounds fair. Oh, and they get to play a team that’s ALREADY BEAT THEM as well.
    I don’t care who’s next in line, Ok St, Standford, Houston…let them play for the MNC. They should be able to get their shot over someone who’s already lost to that team, who COULD be an undefeated CONF champion.

    • All those teams lost to worse teams than the one ‘Bama lost to (and not as closely, either). What’s so fair about letting them have a shot?

      • Nate Dawg

        Fairness for fairness’s sake. Give them their chance. They’ve only got 1 loss – just like Bama, who’s already gotten their chance. Except for Houston who hasn’t lost (who I don’t believe can beat them or necessarily deserves a shot – but hey, they’re undefeated, as espn constantly reminds us…). Not to mention the whole “THEY WOULDN’T EVEN WIN THIER DIVISION OF THEIR CONFERENCE (if these scenerio’s play out).
        I guess if all this plays out, the only thing that matters this year is UGA winning or having a shot at winning the SEC – cuz this MNC scenerio is really upsetting to me.

        • Bryant Denny

          I’m generally in favor of no rematch, but it’s not that simple. If we had beaten LSU, I wouldn’t want a re-match. Nothing to prove.

          However, under this system – assuming Bama beats Auburn, they make the best looking No. 2.

          It really gets tricky if LSU loses to either Arkansas or Georgia.

          • Puffdawg

            I’m generally in favor of no rematch, but it’s not that simple. If we had beaten LSU, I wouldn’t want a re-match. Nothing to prove. whatever most benefits Alabama.

            There, BD, I fixed it for ya.😉

            • Bryant Denny

              Basically that’s what I meant.🙂

              Seriously, though, who else would be no. 2 today?

              • Puffdawg

                Today is irrelevant, but if you’re asking who I think is the second best team in the country as of today, I’d probably say Alabama. However, I think there will be a few more surprises before the season is over. So I think this discussion is a moot point and the only reason I’m participating is because I feel the need to do a little grassroots politicking. If UGA runs the table and beats a consensus # 1 LSU in the Dome, I think there needs to be serious discussion about the Dawgs in the BCSNCG. That said, I’m not comfortable with that discussion until this Sunday. See you then.

                • The Lone Stranger

                  Voters will never go for it. They had the Dawgs buried after the Boise debacle, and the USCe derp-fest only drove the point home. Remember, like the 4-letter cable station continues to bleat, “it’s the entire body of work” and that will ultimately screw UGa.

      • They had their shot, and lost. How is that fair to LSU?

      • Tduga1

        I just don’t get this argument. Bama lost at home to LSU. They had there shot and they didn’t get it done.

        • Bryant Denny

          Who do you think should be No. 2 then? Arkansas? Well, they’ll get their shot but lost to Bama. Ok State? They lost to Iowa State. The only other options are Virginia Tech, Stanford or Boise.

            • Bryant Denny

              The Cougars or the Texans?

              • Puffdawg

                I literally laughed out loud at this comment.

              • The Cougars. See above. If LSU makes it through undefeated, and the only reasonable #2 is someone they already beat, then not only should they not have to beat them again (which would have covered Oregon), but a team that can’t win it’s own conference has no place playing for a national title. If a team can win a national title without winning it’s conference, then college football is devolving to MLB, NFL, college basketball where a wild card team, or someone who isn’t even in the top 2 of their conference’s rankings, can be declared the best team in the nation. In that case, where LSU has bested all comers, they have earned a coronation ceremony and trouncing Houston.

                • Mayor of Dawgtown

                  How do we know LSZoo trounces Houston until the two teams play? The best team in the country in 1998 was Tulane not UT. That Green Wave team still hasn’t lost a game and they got locked out by the BCS with a ridiculously low ranking–same as Houston this year.

                  • Hackerdog

                    Tulane’s schedule was ranked #100 that year. Tennessee’s was #22. Seems like an easy choice to me.

                    • Mayor of Dawgtown

                      UT should have lost 2 regular season games that year and got saved by flukes and the refs. All I’m saying is that UT should have played an undefeated Tulane team instead of an FSU team that lost to NC friggin’ State and played an ACC schedule in the regular season. That was the first year of the BCS and they wouldn’t play the only 2 undefeated teams in even the first year. You could see where this was going from then on and it wasn’t about matching the best 2 teams. TV $$$$$$$ is what the BCS is all about.

                    • Hackerdog

                      Arguing about close losses is meaningless. Every team has close losses.

                      And FSU played the #3 hardest schedule that year.

                      I just think running the table in Conference USA is a lot less impressive than you do. What was Tulane’s signature win that year? A 6-point win over Louisville (who was one of only three bowl-eligible teams they played in the regular season)? If that’s really what it takes to get a shot at the national championship, then I think UGA should leave the SEC this year and join a mid-major. We’ll play for the national championship every other year.

                      The BCS was formed, in part, to remedy the 1984 BYU debacle. You seem to want more BYUs in the system. I’m not surprised you don’t like #1 versus #2.

          • 4.0 Point Stance

            All those teams have losses. But none of those teams have losses TO LSU. Doesn’t that matter?

            • Bryant Denny

              Kinda. Arkansas is at No. 3 and they got hammered by Alabama. There just isn’t another clear cut No. 2 – at this point. Of course, if we lay an egg at Auburn, we’ll find out who’s next in line.

              • 4.0 Point Stance

                I find that exceedingly unlikely. But I do believe that a convincing win by OSU over OU would give them a resume at least as good as the Tide’s. In other words, it’s not a question of whether Bama will play its way out; it’s whether OSU will play its way in.

                It’s also possible that V Tech will end up at #2, but on a purely subjective level I just don’t believe they deserve it.

                • Bryant Denny

                  I concur.

                  Bama’s best route is for LSU to win twice and hope for a rematch and to be Auburn decisively.

              • The Lone Stranger

                If that does happen, then the gap slides a bit wider for the Dawgs I think. Just not far enough.

              • Of course, if we lay an egg at Auburn, we’ll find out who’s next in line…..
                No matter who’s “next in line” it won’t be someone worthy of a national title, or someone who has dominated all comers from day 1. It’s a giant masturbatory argument.

          • UGAfoo

            A major conference champion with one loss. Could be Okie State, Virginia Tech, or Stanford. It only makes sense to me that the SEC should play another conference champion for the national title. Not another team in their same division. That playoff game happened and Bama lost.

            VT can get redemption against Clemson. That would make a strong case for them.

            Okie State gets a pass due to the tragedy that befell their program last Friday. Beat Oklahoma (which I think they will) and they deserve serious consideration.

            Stanford’s road is not as easy. They need Oregon State to beat Oregon so they can play in the PAC 12 championship game. Otherwise they are done.

            Politically for the SEC and the BCS shouldn’t have two SEC West teams play for the BCS. The rest of the country outside SEC territory would not like it. That’s just my opinion. Hell I’m in the SEC East and I don’t want to see that game again.

            • MT

              OK State is screwed by there not being a conference championship game in existence for the Big-12 this year. In any other year, they could redeem themselves by playing & winning the title, but I think the pollsters are going to punish them for losing at the wrong time of the season.

              • Bryant Denny

                Yeah, but it’s in their favor that they play Oklahoma on Dec. 3 instead of this weekend. If they dismantle OU, I might not sleep well that night.

      • Bad Marinara

        I don’t succumb to the whole, “must win the conference” thing, but I do think that winning your conf. gives you a tie breaker over someone who didn’t. There should be some credit given.

      • adam

        obviously the BCS doesn’t care about quality of losses or else oklahoma wouldn’t be ranked ahead of georgia right now.

  7. Go Dawgs!

    I guess it’s time to pull a Tuberville and make 2007 National Championship rings. “The People’s Champ!”

  8. PatinDC

    Anybody but ‘Bama is my mantra. I won’t be able to stomach the St. Nick coronation.

    • Ty webb

      And the entire reason for this “controversy” is yanked from behind the curtain of strained logic.

      • adam

        “The regular season is the most important in sports!”
        “Every game counts!”
        “Lose and you’re out!”

        …unless it’s the Bama-LSU game this year. Bama knew it had to when that game. They didn’t. They should be out. Rematches are stupid and make no sense. Bama had their shot and they blew it with missed field goals and poor play on offense. If there’s a rematch, then the regular season match up between those two was meaningless.

        • Sanford222View

          ” Rematches are stupid and make no sense.”

          “If there’s a rematch, then the regular season match up between those two was meaningless.”

          You mean just like with a playoff system?

          • adam

            that’s what i was saying, actually.

            that the rematch really messes up the “every game matters!” meme this year.

  9. Turd Ferguson

    I guess I’m in something of a minority for not being particularly bothered by the idea of a rematch in the BCS championship game. It should be the two best teams in the country, no matter what. And at this point, I think it’s pretty obvious that LSU and Alabama are the two best teams in the country. It’s frustrating when, at the end of the season, #1 and #2 are clearly NOT the two best teams in the country (i.e, most years). But if things stay the way they are, that will not be the case this year.

    • Sanford222View

      Not necessarily disagreeing with you but what years have #1 and #2 clearly not been the two best teams? You say this is most years but I would say the BCS gets it right most of the time.

      • in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, among others. This decade, there has been more debate over #1 and #2 than there’s been years where 1 and 2 were clear cut.

  10. Bulldog Joe

    College football.

    The only sport where losing “earns” you a bye.

  11. Nate

    I think an 8 team playoff consisting of 6 conference champions and 2 at large spots determined by the BCS (with a reconfigured Coaches Poll a la the Mumme Poll) would be the best solution, but it’s kind of hard to argue that LSU and Alabama aren’t the 2 best teams right now. At least under the above format, Georgia could conceivably play for the National Championship.

    • DawgPhan

      Every 8 team playoff becomes a 16 team playoff.

      • Nate

        Exactly. That’s one reason I’m not on the playoff bandwagon. We all know an 8 team playoff would never allow every Mid Major with an inferiority complex the chance to play Cinderella, so how long would it take before we need 16 teams to be “fair”. Then, somebody will say “16 teams is only 0.14% of all college teams, we should really make it a 32 team playoff.” And so on and so forth until we wake up one morning and see a 6-6 Conference USA team still alive in the third round. Of course, they would have probably gotten there by beating Georgia Tech, so I guess it wouldn’t be a total loss.

      • Macallanlover

        Wow, that is why no one can have an intelligent discussion with antis. They keep their heads in the sand and assume they know everything, even before it happens.

  12. Macallanlover

    That is the best way, accommodates everyone who should have a shot (which makes it credible), and it works within the time frame needed. You may have a weak sister, or two, included, but no conference/region is excluded. At the end, you have a champion who earned their way in. That doesn’t necessarily identify the best team in the country but no system ever can because teh best team in the country varies from week to week anyway. Better that playing a whole season and excluding decent teams, which happens every year under the current process.

    • Hackerdog

      If the goal should be to identify the best team in the country at the first of January, does that mean we should start awarding national championships for other time periods? Should South Carolina get the national championship for September each year?

      Since they go to the trouble of playing games in months other than January, maybe we should use those games to help determine who the best team in the country is.

  13. Sure, Senator, sure….
    “They’ve been settling things on the field for twelve weeks now”

    Because LSU beating Bama in T-town obviously settled that debate. Or it didn’t happen. If things weretrly “settled on the field” during the regular season, then LSU wouldn’t have to beat Bama twice now would they?

    • And an extended playoff is different how exactly?

      • Thanks for answering my question with an irrelevant question that provides no answer.

        • Oy. My “settling on the field” comment was sarcastic. The issue you raise would occur regardless of format, wouldn’t it?

          My point is that there are tradeoffs no matter how you structure it. If a big playoff makes you happy, fine. Just don’t tell me I’m an idiot for worrying about how that might impact the regular season.

          • I didn’t catch the sarcasm, my mistake. It seems we agree then, no matter what system there is in place, flaws will be present. Because as you say above, allowing for the needed flexibility depending on each individual season is not something TV would allow. And since TV runs this show, they need cost certainty.

            I don’t think you’re an idiot for saying a playoff would in some ways negate from the regular season, because it would. But the regular season is NOT a psuedo playoff, as evidence by Bama in the discussion this year, by LSU in 07, by Nebraska in 2001, FSU in 2000, Oklahoma in 2003, Auburn in 2004, among others. No matter what, there will be flaws. It’d just be nice if the anti-playoff crowd would more readily admit to those flaws instead of spitting out the same, old, tired, flawed comments such as a “regular season playoff”, or “it adds too many games”, and some of the other tripe they spit up.

            • Puffdawg

              I have never seen somebody other than a college president say a playoff would add too many games. In the entirety of this debate, on this blog, going back several years now, the anti (extended) playoff crowd has always acknowledged there are flaws in the current system, but the argument has always been that any replacement has flaws (as you admit) but would further damage CFB that we know by dimishing the importance of games like LSU Bama 2011. We chose the lesser of two evils.

              • If a rematch happens in the big game, does that not automatically diminish the earlier LSU/Bama game? It would become irrelevant if both teams play again in New Orleans to determine who should be champion.

                • Puffdawg

                  Absolutely it would diminish the first game. But then how many times have we seen a rematch in the BCS? Never? And what has and will have to happen for that to even be a possibility? I think even BD will admit Bama was out of it after losing that game, unless all kinds of crazy shit happened, some of which has. And remember, the season is not over yet.

                  But yes, a Bama/LSU rematch would absolutely diminish that game, much like arguing to fire your team’s head coach the same year he wins a championship diminishes your credibility as an evaluator of coaching talent.

                    • Puffdawg

                      Deserved wouldn’t you say? Despite my frustration with the absurdity of that thing you call a blog, I have full confidence you can be rehabilitated and once again positively contribute cold blooded sausage making to (the Georgia Football) society.

                    • No, I wouldn’t say it’s “deserved”. There were significant issues that needed addressing, thankfully they’ve been addressed well. We never said the man didn’t have talent, or have great ability at his job. We were more concerned with motivation, and the complacency that led to the last few years culminating in an embarrassing loss to the worst team in major conference football the last several years of Colorado.

                    • Puffdawg

                      Well, I didn’t necessarily have a problem with your concerns. It was your delivery that had me irked. You can spin it how you want, but I think Coach Richt probably deserved a little more respect than you guys were giving him. Would you not agree?

                    • Of course I don’t agree, or else I wouldn’t have said the things I said (and remember, there’s two of us writing, so we aren’t always of the same opinion, and some of what we say is firmly tongue in cheeck).

                  • Macallanlover

                    Damn Puff, why didn’t you say he was a UGA hater before now? I wouldn’t have wasted time replying to him earlier. Got no time for those whose mission is to hurt the Dawgs, incessantly. Screw him, might as well be an AubieCane or Nerd….he ain’t one of us.

            • Maybe I’m being overly nuanced here, but I’m not anti-playoffs, just anti-extended playoffs. I recognize that there’s no such thing as a perfect solution here. I just want something that doesn’t screw up what I love the most about CFB – a meaningful regular season.

              To paraphrase your last sentence, it would be nice if the Dan Wetzel’s of the world would admit that there’s something to my worries. I can live with the “I like brackets” crowd; it’s the people telling me it’s all so easy that I can’t respect.

      • Tduga1

        One could argue that in a playoff Bama would be forced to beat at least one, if not two, of the once beatens to get there rematch. Wouldn’t that remove most of the doubt about whether or not Bama deserves to be there?

        The current system forces them to beat Mississippi State, GA Southern, and Auburn.

        • Bryant Denny

          Under the current system, pretty much every week is a “playoff.” That means the other games count, too.

  14. watdawg

    Since we already have a great, grand “14 week playoff” (15 in certain years), should there even be bowl games?

    All the other college and pro sports are obviously wrong. The other 3 college football classes are obviously wrong. Everyone is wrong. I am right.

    • DawgPhan

      And none of those sports have meaningful games from opening day to the last game.

      • watdawg

        The other college football classes don’t have meaningful regular season games? The NFL doesn’t have meaningful regular season games?

        Are you serious?

        • DawgPhan

          “Meaningful regular season games from opening day to the last game”, see how that is different than “The NFL doesn’t have meaningful regular season games.”

          Hint it has to do with the amount of meaningful regular season games.

          • Dante

            So was the New Mexico State game meaningful? How about Bama vs. GA Southern? We don’t have to worry about playoffs watering down the college football regular season. The member institutions are doing that already.

            • Puffdawg

              Having a playoff will not make the New Mexico St game more or less meaningful. However, it is this man’s opinion that having a (extended) playoff could substantially decrease the meaning of higher profile games. In the pros, 2007 NE Patriots beat the 2007 NYG in the last game of the regular season only to lose to them in the playoffs. Do the NYG care the lost to the Pats in the regular season? The 2010 Georgia Southern Eagles lost to Wofford at home only to beat Wofford in the playoffs. GSU fans were glowing with pride at the end of the season because of their success in the playoffs. They didn’t care about the regular season loss to Wofford.

              • adam

                the bama-lsu rematch happens, would the bama fans care about the regular season game? or would they just brag about their championship?

                • Puffdawg

                  You guys keep referencing this inevitable Bama LSU rematch. It hasn’t happened yet, and a rematch has NEVER happened in the 13 years of the BCSNCG. There is a lot of football left to play.

                  Look I absolutely agree a rematch would diminsh the regular season matchup between LSU and Bama. And I think Bama, if they won the rematch, could give a shit about the regular season game. But it would be the first time in the history of the BCS that a rematch would have happened. If we had playoff format where two SEC teams were eligible, we’d have a rematch every damn year. So, yes, the regular season matchup would have been diminshed, but it would have been diminished one time in 15 years rather than every single season with an extended playoff.

                  • adam

                    i’m just saying that the people who are pro-current system should be aggressively arguing against that possibility. it undermines the system as it currently exists.

              • Dante

                You proceed from a false assumption. I don’t care if there’s a playoff or not. I just don’t buy into the notion that there are more meaningful games in college football’s regular season. Personally, I just want to see as much quality college football as possible.

                An extended playoff could accomplish that but I doubt it will. By the time the smaller conferences all squabble for spots, we’d likely have fewer interesting games than we have in our current system because the top seeds would blow out the bottom seeds for at least a round or two. A +1 is interesting to me because it adds 1 potentially good game to the mix. But what I’d most like to see is a system that rewards teams for scheduling out-of-conference games against actual peers.

                As far as the Pats vs. Giants argument, you can see it as a great injustice or you can clean the sand out of your vagina and see what were probably the two best games of the 2007 NFL season. I don’t care whether or not it was unfair to the Patriots. I just care that I got to see two fantastic football games.

                • Puffdawg

                  Come on, Dante, play nice!

                  Dante, what I’m trying to say is a regular season loss wouldn’t sting as much if there was an extended playoff. You could accept a loss as long as the playoffs loomed (see: PittsburgH, 2011).

                  I bet the 2004 Auburn Tigers would tell you the current BCS system provides plenty of incentive for a strong OOC schedule.

                  As for the Pats vs. Giants, I don’t really care much about the NFL (other than, like you, I enjoy watching good football), but I think that scenario is the best example for why an extended playoff sucks. Probably the greatest NFL team in recent history was not crowned champs because they were only able to win 18 games in a row instead of 19. They won their freaking division by 9 games!

        • Puffdawg

          Let’s see if this example will put into perspective the “meaning” of regular season games in the NFL: the Pittsburg Steelers, having lost twice now this season to their bitter division rival Baltimore Ravens, are optimistic they have all the pieces in place to make a run at the Super Bowl – THIS SEASON.

          How important can the regular season possibly be when you lose TWICE to your rival and are optimistic (with good reason) on winding up as champions. Why did the Ravens and Pittsburg even play those games in the first place?

          With a college football playoff, NONE of the shenanigans in the last two weeks matter because eventually, everybody with a pulse gets in.

          • edawg

            Hold on a minute puff. Even if you had a 16 team playoff and gave 11 spots to the conference champions, you’d only be left with 5 at-large spots. Giving 5 spots to at-large teams isn’t the same as “everybody with a pulse gets in”. When you take it down to an 8 team playoff, you’re left with even fewer at-large spots. A playoff doesn’t devalue the regular season the way you think it does.

            And comparing the 120 team FBS to the 32 team NFL is comparing apples to oranges.

            • … isn’t the same as “everybody with a pulse gets in”

              Personally, I welcome our new Sun Belt Conference-champion overlords. 😉

              The real problem with that arrangement is that there will be screaming about why a Troy team that lost to Florida by 50 gets in and the fourth best SEC team doesn’t. Solution? Expanding the playoffs to 20 schools. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

              • edawg

                Nice Simpsons/Kent Brockman reference. That made me laugh.

                If we don’t want the weak conferences to get an automatic berth, then don’t do a 16 team playoff. Do an 8 team playoff. Give auto berths to the 5 big conferences (sorry Big East). Have 3 at-large spots. Problem solved.

                • ed, I was giving you credit here for being sensible. Don’t go “it’s so easy” on me now.😉

                  Once you expand the playoffs to a point where you’re routinely admitting schools that don’t really belong in the national title conversation – which would be the case most of the time – you’re creating the conditions where expansion will be encouraged in the name of fairness to other teams which argue that if Team A got in, so should they.

                  There are very, very few years you can point to in which eight schools have a legitimate claim to a national championship.

                  • Puffdawg

                    i.e. 2011 you’d have LSU, Ok St, VT, Oregon, Mich St, Bama, Arky, and Stanford. And the masses would complain that bubble teams Boise, Houston, OU, and K State would have been left out relative to, say, Arky, rather than seeing the big picture that Arky should have never been in a playoff to begin with. Solution? Let’s go to 12 teams.


                  • edawg

                    I hear you and I agree. See my responses below to Puff. I have the same concerns. The MOST teams I would ever want to see in a playoff are 16. I am vehemently against any more than that. Honestly, I don’t even want to see more than 8.

                    If it were my world, I’d have an 8 team playoff every year (no more, no less). I think that gets all of the teams who have had the best seasons into the mix.

                  • Macallanlover

                    I think everyone misses the point about 8 teams in a NC playoff, it isn’t about who may have a claim on being the best team for that year, it is about inclusiveness for all of America to say they had a chance to win a NC playoff. Playoffs at any level do not necessarily determine who is the very best team that year, that will also be true in CFB with a palyoff instituted but they should allow a representative from each sub-group. It takes away the whining, much of which has some basis in fact. We all know there will never be agreement between conference fans about who plays the toughest games, or has the best conference top to bottom. This is why you have to allow them a chance to prove themselves, orlisten to them forever. I say let’s give them a shot.

                    With the six BCS conference champions, the highest rated non-BCS team, and a spot for the highest rated team not in the above, no one can deny they did not have a chance to get included. And that is what it is about to me, give me a playoff where the regular season is the play-in, but membership is not denied to anyone, and the numbers still represent a very exculsive club. Eight participants from 120 scholls is damned demanding, more so than all the current playoffs in place.

                    • Mac, if it’s about inclusiveness, I fail to see why eight is a magic number.

                    • Hackerdog

                      Once you abandon identifying the best team as the goal of the championship, you’ve lost a great deal of what makes college football unique in sports.

                      And you’re kidding yourself if you think that the #9 team simply accepts their fate meekly.

                    • Macallanlover

                      Because it does allow for all the major conferences to have a seat at the table, it allows for a rogue mid-major complaint, and it also accommodates the strongest wild card that was caught in a very strong conference and only lost to a powerhouse by a respectable score. It is also the one number that fits the timeframe needed and allows for fans to make travel plans.
                      Hack, I realize there will always be a #9, or even a #5 but with all major conferences getting their champion in, along with the highest rated mid-major, the conversation becomes one of pitying a fan who has no leg to stand on. The current system does not guarantee, nor conclusively, identify the best team….and I don’t think many would argue that so that is a “push” beween the two systems. I have to say any system is kidding itself if it thinks we will know who is best…only who was better that day between those teams.
                      Satisfying fans nationally (say to the 98th percentile) would be a great improvement. And how can you be against three additional rounds of great matchups for CFB?

                    • Hackerdog

                      Change your #9 or #5 comment to #3 and you have basically summed up my position. I understand the railing by the #3 school that it won’t get a chance to play for a championship. I’m just befuddled by your insistence that changing the #3 to a #9 will solve easily solve the problem. If anything, it makes it worse.

                      When you’re picking two teams, you have to be a great team. Not many teams can argue that they’re one of the two best in the country. There are many more teams that can argue they’re one of the top eight. And there are many more that can argue they’re one of the top sixteen.

                      And I agree that the BCS doesn’t guarantee that the best team will be the champion. But that’s the goal. You don’t even care about that. So you are degrading the championship from that point of view.

                      I agree that satisfying 99% of fans would be an excellent system. Let me know if something comes along that will do that.

                      And finally, I can be against three rounds of college football if it degrades the regular season. If UGA starts resting starters against GA Tech, because winning the SEC is all that matters when it comes to making the tournament, or if UGA discontinues the Tech series altogether because it conflicts with the goal of making the tournament, then I won’t be happy. If I start selling my regular season tickets and simply catching the highlights on ESPN because the real season doesn’t start until January, ala basketball, then I won’t be happy.

              • The Lone Stranger

                Hilltoppers uber alles!

            • And comparing the 120 team FBS to the 32 team NFL is comparing apples to oranges.

              Can you explain that to the commenter who complained that every other sport has a playoff except college football?


            • Puffdawg

              E, what do you make of this?

              You realize the same guys who expanded FCS would be running the FBS playoff, right?

              • edawg

                That is actually a really good point and I agree with you. It would be a mistake to let those same turds rule over an FBS playoff (the same turds who keep expanding the div 1 bball tourney).

                Is there any way to put together a playoff and build in measures to guard against expansion? Or at least not let the NCAA control it?

                • Puffdawg

                  Bluto supports a Plus One (not sure the link). I would be ok with a Plus One if I thought it wouldn’t expand. I just don’t think that’s reasonable to expect based on the precedent of NCAA officials and presidents to expand. I enjoy the discussion of who should play for the mythical national championship and watching LSU Bama in the game in the century and the implications surrounding the game more than I enjoy lamenting the fact that the 16-0 Patriots were not the champs. The Pittsburgh fans could care less the lost twice to hated rival Baltimore as long as they make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. Is that the college football world we want to live in?

          • munson

            The 49ers wouldn’t make the championship game b/c their strength of schedule is too weak. Packers vs. Patriots would be the BCS matchup. Those 2 teams are “CLEARLY” the best.

            • Puffdawg

              Your knocking the BCS rather than making a compelling case in favor of playoffs. I don’t think the BCS is perfect. I just think it is better than any proposed playoff I’ve seen. Tell me why I should support a playoff. By all means, assuage my fear of expansion.

            • Actually the Packers have played the worst schedule (.410) of any team in the NFC this year.😉

          • The Lone Stranger

            PittsburgH — sorry Puff, had to, repping for the hometown.

            • Puffdawg

              Yea, mea culpa. I was in too much of a hurry to hammer home my point. Last time I drove through Athens with my window down they chunked a diploma in my car and now I think I own the place! 🙂

              • The Lone Stranger

                No problemo, Puffs. I dig your analysis generally and your delivery. Incidentally, the name was spelled Pittsburg from 1891-1911 thanks to a Board of Geographic Names effort to standardize U.S. town names. For whatever that is worth. Which ain’t much.

    • Dog in Fla

      “should there even be bowl games?”

      Yes. How else would Bowl Game Executive Directors be able to put food on their families?

  15. Bryant Denny

    Personally, I love any system that will leave an undefeated Auburn out of the mix, PLUS allow my beloved Tide to play in the BCS game without going though Atlanta!

    Seriously, though, I’ve put up a list of scenarios over at my blog (don’t laugh).

    Have a good day,


  16. goalinestalker

    Funny thing about 07 is, if LSU had lost the title game to OSU they would have lost 2 of 3 games to finish the year, while the Dawgs ran off 7 straight wins and a #2 ranking. Still pissed that the mother ship at ESPN spun all things Miles! Every thing changed the moment Miles went on CBS and called out Herbfag and ESPN for saying he was Michigan bound. Then the spinmiesters started the LSU parade to the tilte game.

  17. BCDawg97

    Given that no one thought Iowa St would win, I’ll wait til Dec 3 to see how it shakes out. But I do think ultimately, you’ll see 2007 over again. While Bama may be perceived to be the #2 team, I think the pollsters will rejumble everything and elevate the SEC champ and another a conference champ even if they think Arky/LSU/Bama may be #2.

  18. Playoffs will just further show how dominant SEC is.

  19. Possible scenerio in an 8 team playoff. Team A and Team B play regular season game, Team A beats team B. Team A and Team B play again for conference championship Team A wins again. Neither team loses another game and the resume of team B gets them in as the last “wild card” in an 8 team playoff. The two meet up in the championship and Team B wins. Team A has 1 loss and is 2-1 head to head but Team B wins the title. The possibilities get much worse with a 16 team playoff. Does college football have the best way to crown a champion, no. Does it have by far the most exciting season in all of sports, yes and it is not even close. It is not perfect but man I don’t want to see it change.