Eat it BCS!!!!!!!!!!!Boise State National Champions!!!!

[Globetrotter]

Do your eally think that they have a ton more athletic talent? I don't.

Yup. And it ain't close.

thats not a fact thats an assumption.

A fact is Mettalica sucks.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

I don't think they're the best either, obviously. I think they deserve a shot to win it on the field, as do the other 118 teams at the start of September. As it is now, 80% of the teams have 0 chance to win a championship at the start of every year, and I think that's bunk.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

Do your eally think that they have a ton more athletic talent? I don't.

Yup. And it ain't close.

thats not a fact thats an assumption.

A fact is Mettalica sucks.

Actually, it's an opinion. Big difference.

And who's Mettalica? Are they some cover band from Cincinatti?

[NWLB]

I don't think they're the best either, obviously. I think they deserve a shot to win it on the field, as do the other 118 teams at the start of September. As it is now, 80% of the teams have 0 chance to win a championship at the start of every year, and I think that's bunk.

Win what on the field then? If it is generally felt they aren't THE best, a playoff title becomes just another title. We have had several of those given to declare national champions, including BGSU's small college title. 80% of 1A (and brace yourself Bleeding Orange, here come more half-truths and whatever you were talking about) don't have a chance to win a title even with a playoff.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

I don't think they're the best either, obviously. I think they deserve a shot to win it on the field, as do the other 118 teams at the start of September. As it is now, 80% of the teams have 0 chance to win a championship at the start of every year, and I think that's bunk.

Win what on the field then? If it is generally felt they aren't THE best, a playoff title becomes just another title. We have had several of those given to declare national champions, including BGSU's small college title. 80% of 1A (and brace yourself Bleeding Orange, here come more half-truths and whatever you were talking about) don't have a chance to win a title even with a playoff.

I'm a fan. I want to be entertained. My personal entertainment would be maximized by a 16-team playoff. My opinion isn't going to change, and neither is yours. Of the educated CFB fans I've talked to, and I'm including certain members of this site, yes even you , at least 9 out of 10 agree with me. At least.

[NWLB]

Indeed, I'm not really getting at anything other than a point of view I and others share. Not counting the voices in my head, I'm up to about 8 so far.

As noted in another thread, I take this from the basic question of figuring out "who is the best." To me, that is a subjective question that can not be answered in some scientific and undebatable way.

A playoff to me, simply creates another title, which applies to nothing more than that tournament. This is exactly what the NCAA basketball tournament is. That title creates a champion, which has merged with what is generally deemed the national champion. There are years where most people would agree that the "best" team did not win.

You can have your playoff, but what it will never do, certainly never to the absolute degree its advocates claim, is determine "on the field" who the best team is. Thus, you will never settle the arguement, and therefore there is no point to a playoff.

In effect, we are debating what is more important, more than if there should or should not be a playoff. To that end, if you speak in terms of pure entertainment, sure, like you, I'd love more football, there can never be enough of it. But I'm not willing to change what we have to get that.

[Globetrotter]

I don't think they're the best either, obviously. I think they deserve a shot to win it on the field, as do the other 118 teams at the start of September. As it is now, 80% of the teams have 0 chance to win a championship at the start of every year, and I think that's bunk.

Win what on the field then? If it is generally felt they aren't THE best, a playoff title becomes just another title. We have had several of those given to declare national champions, including BGSU's small college title. 80% of 1A (and brace yourself Bleeding Orange, here come more half-truths and whatever you were talking about) don't have a chance to win a title even with a playoff.

That statement is false. 100% of Divisoan I-Ateams would have a shot at winning the championship. IF they won all of their games they would be champions. We would never again have a team that went undefeated and did not have a chance at a title.

[Globetrotter]

Indeed, I'm not really getting at anything other than a point of view I and others share. Not counting the voices in my head, I'm up to about 8 so far.

As noted in another thread, I take this from the basic question of figuring out "who is the best." To me, that is a subjective question that can not be answered in some scientific and undebatable way.

A playoff to me, simply creates another title, which applies to nothing more than that tournament. This is exactly what the NCAA basketball tournament is. That title creates a champion, which has merged with what is generally deemed the national champion. There are years where most people would agree that the "best" team did not win.

You can have your playoff, but what it will never do, certainly never to the absolute degree its advocates claim, is determine "on the field" who the best team is. Thus, you will never settle the arguement, and therefore there is no point to a playoff.

In effect, we are debating what is more important, more than if there should or should not be a playoff. To that end, if you speak in terms of pure entertainment, sure, like you, I'd love more football, there can never be enough of it. But I'm not willing to change what we have to get that.

Why are you unwilling to change. What do you lose if do a playoff. Dont say the bowls. You can still have all of these bowls and a playoff.

[Globetrotter]

Do your eally think that they have a ton more athletic talent? I don't.

Yup. And it ain't close.

thats not a fact thats an assumption.

A fact is Mettalica sucks.

Actually, it's an opinion. Big difference.

And who's Mettalica? Are they some cover band from Cincinatti?

youngstown

[NWLB]

I don't think they're the best either, obviously. I think they deserve a shot to win it on the field, as do the other 118 teams at the start of September. As it is now, 80% of the teams have 0 chance to win a championship at the start of every year, and I think that's bunk.

Win what on the field then? If it is generally felt they aren't THE best, a playoff title becomes just another title. We have had several of those given to declare national champions, including BGSU's small college title. 80% of 1A (and brace yourself Bleeding Orange, here come more half-truths and whatever you were talking about) don't have a chance to win a title even with a playoff.

That statement is false. 100% of Divisoan I-Ateams would have a shot at winning the championship. IF they won all of their games they would be champions. We would never again have a team that went undefeated and did not have a chance at a title.

Re-read my post above. The reason all this talk was started, was supposedly to find out who was "the best." Take this back to the alleged purpose of a playoff, and the entire house of cards starts to fall. 100% of 1A can't be "the best." The only think a playoff provides is another title, and if you then try to say it is an absolute measure of who is best, then that statement is false. It is false, because there is no imperical measure of who is best. It is a fundamentally subjective thing, which no playoff will settle.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

I prefer the marginal subjectivity of an inclusive playoff system to the extreme subjectivity of a system based on some computers and pre-season guesswork.

[NWLB]

Indeed, I'm not really getting at anything other than a point of view I and others share. Not counting the voices in my head, I'm up to about 8 so far.

As noted in another thread, I take this from the basic question of figuring out "who is the best." To me, that is a subjective question that can not be answered in some scientific and undebatable way.

A playoff to me, simply creates another title, which applies to nothing more than that tournament. This is exactly what the NCAA basketball tournament is. That title creates a champion, which has merged with what is generally deemed the national champion. There are years where most people would agree that the "best" team did not win.

You can have your playoff, but what it will never do, certainly never to the absolute degree its advocates claim, is determine "on the field" who the best team is. Thus, you will never settle the arguement, and therefore there is no point to a playoff.

In effect, we are debating what is more important, more than if there should or should not be a playoff. To that end, if you speak in terms of pure entertainment, sure, like you, I'd love more football, there can never be enough of it. But I'm not willing to change what we have to get that.

Why are you unwilling to change. What do you lose if do a playoff. Dont say the bowls. You can still have all of these bowls and a playoff.

I will say the bowls. If you shorten the regular season in favor of a playoff, its not with doing it. In theory you might find a way to a post-post season, or play the bowls as the playoff is underway. But I see no practical way to take the popular 16 team field, and sustain the bowls we have.

You'd have 8 playoff games, then 4 more playoff games, then 2 more playoff games, then the title game. 15 games. Four weeks or longer. And then who gets into a playoff? What bowl bids get wrecked because the locked conferences can't provide teams? What bowls crash due to lack of teams with winning records? How much harder is the bowl system going to have it, trying to survive in the shadow of such a playoff?

Then where are the playoff games going to be played? Home fields? That won't fly. Bowl sites? Sure, but who gets to host every year? Rotate? Not as easy as it sounds, and the strain on smaller bowls becomes an issue. And that still doesn't get one past the eligible team issue.

What teams get into the playoff? Conference champions? You'd have steep differences in first round games which will be decried as unfair, or a conference gets more than one bid, and we have more issues and debates. None of it doing anything to determine who is the best, which was supposed to be the point wasn't it?

[Jacobs4Heisman]

It's not nearly as complicated as you make it sound. If an idiot like me can sit down for ten minutes and figure out how to make it work, a bunch of smart people in a room can take a week and make it better.

[NWLB]

I prefer the marginal subjectivity of an inclusive playoff system to the extreme subjectivity of a system based on some computers and pre-season guesswork.

Naming the best team will remain a subjective thing. A playoff only creates another title. There isn't anything wrong with wanting to see more football. But don't call a playoff what it isn't. There is nothing wrong with wanting more football, as I noted in the other thread. It is simply my point of view that having a playoff does not do enough to warrant changes that would have to come to accommodate it.

[NWLB]

It's not nearly as complicated as you make it sound. If an idiot like me can sit down for ten minutes and figure out how to make it work, a bunch of smart people in a room can take a week and make it better.

I don't trust the motivations of the TV networks, who are basically the reason this entire debate got started years ago. Now they seem content with what they have, and the debate has continued.

In any case, its 2:38 EST, and I'm going to let the rest of the world weigh-in Tuesday. In 48 hours I'm off to the Caribbean for a cruise, so you guys can occupy the capital, declare a republic, and playoff your brains out!