Would you boycott watching BCS games?

[NY-BG-FAN]

College football is just fine the way it is. So what if #3 always complains if they are left out of the BCS title game. Have an 8 team playoff, #9 will complain. 16 teams, #17 will complain. In hoops, numbers 35 through 45 complain all week until the NIT starts that they weren't one of 34 at-large bids. Life's not fair, so who cares.

I don't lose any sleep at night knowing Bowling Green can't win a national championship in football. Let the Ohio States of the world have the BCS fanfare. Beating Toledo is good enough for me. For me at least, at the end of the day in the Doyt it's more about being in Bowling Green and enjoying my what my school did for me that than it is about winning a football game.

[zeket10]

College football is just fine the way it is. So what if #3 always complains if they are left out of the BCS title game. Have an 8 team playoff, #9 will complain. 16 teams, #17 will complain. In hoops, numbers 35 through 45 complain all week until the NIT starts that they weren't one of 34 at-large bids. Life's not fair, so who cares.

I don't lose any sleep at night knowing Bowling Green can't win a national championship in football. Let the Ohio States of the world have the BCS fanfare. Beating Toledo is good enough for me. For me at least, at the end of the day in the Doyt it's more about being in Bowling Green and enjoying my what my school did for me that than it is about winning a football game.

Well thats interesting way of putting it. Well just look at Boise State and how they have found their way to the promise land. Well almost.

[tekekini]

Actually Tek I saw an article a while back ... I wish I could find it, but that would take a while, and it would have been on foxsports.com, sports.yahoo.com, sportsline.com, or espn.com, not really sure which. It stated a bunch of coaches who said they were in favor of at least a plus one - Tressel, Meyer, Stoops, some others too, but the common denominator was they had all won championships in the current system, and they felt it needed fixing. That definitely got me to thinking some about a plus one. That is a system I would be in favor of personally, but without a doubt a four team playoff would soon not be enough.

Phil Steele had an article in the 07 preview about the plus one system. His ideal system would have the bowls take place as they normally would, but with the top four playing each other in the final two BCS bowls, then have those two winners face off weeks later in the NFL bye week before the Super Bowl. Sounds interesting, it would keep some sort of college football happening between the first week of January and national signing day. Not sure I like it, but it was a good read.

Yes, a +1 system will be what you see IF you see anything...but the same concept applies...people will cry and throw a fit when their team gets left out that they will call for a + 3 system, then a + 5 etc. until we end up with a 16 team tournament.

Football is just not a sport for tournaments. Then to fill the seats (because fans especially the students will not want to shell out $500/ticket for a playoff game plus travel costs for 3 or 4 playoff games) the majority of tickets will be sold to corporate license holders..then you have a NFL atmosphere instead of a tradtional college atmosphere. Not many fans of the reaf fans of the schools will have seats...it will become more and more comercialized and it will ruin college football.

I know it will ruin it for me. I love college football for its differences from the NFL. I find the NFL boring and drawn out. That is what will happen to college if a playoff is installed and then the allotment of teams to get in grows and grows and grows.

Basketball is a tournament sport, football is not. Speaking of the NCAA tourney...they still bitch that there arent enough teams...people want that field to grow to 120 teams, which would be about half of the division 1 teams. You will have teams with a .500 season or worse, losing season, in the tourney.

College football is about the only sport left where the regular season means everything to your championship hopes. lose once your chances diminish to near 0% of a championship. In weird years like last year you obviously get an exception. Lose twice in a tournament with 32 teams (which undoubtedly would happen to a ncaa football tourney) you have 2 and 3 loss teams getting in over undefeated MAC teams.

Nothing is going to be fair or good enough for those of you who want everything.

It is better off left alone.

[hammb]

Actually Tek I saw an article a while back ... I wish I could find it, but that would take a while, and it would have been on foxsports.com, sports.yahoo.com, sportsline.com, or espn.com, not really sure which. It stated a bunch of coaches who said they were in favor of at least a plus one - Tressel, Meyer, Stoops, some others too, but the common denominator was they had all won championships in the current system, and they felt it needed fixing. That definitely got me to thinking some about a plus one. That is a system I would be in favor of personally, but without a doubt a four team playoff would soon not be enough.

Phil Steele had an article in the 07 preview about the plus one system. His ideal system would have the bowls take place as they normally would, but with the top four playing each other in the final two BCS bowls, then have those two winners face off weeks later in the NFL bye week before the Super Bowl. Sounds interesting, it would keep some sort of college football happening between the first week of January and national signing day. Not sure I like it, but it was a good read.

Yes, a +1 system will be what you see IF you see anything...but the same concept applies...people will cry and throw a fit when their team gets left out that they will call for a + 3 system, then a + 5 etc. until we end up with a 16 team tournament.

Football is just not a sport for tournaments. Then to fill the seats (because fans especially the students will not want to shell out $500/ticket for a playoff game plus travel costs for 3 or 4 playoff games) the majority of tickets will be sold to corporate license holders..then you have a NFL atmosphere instead of a tradtional college atmosphere. Not many fans of the reaf fans of the schools will have seats...it will become more and more comercialized and it will ruin college football.

I know it will ruin it for me. I love college football for its differences from the NFL. I find the NFL boring and drawn out. That is what will happen to college if a playoff is installed and then the allotment of teams to get in grows and grows and grows.

Basketball is a tournament sport, football is not. Speaking of the NCAA tourney...they still bitch that there arent enough teams...people want that field to grow to 120 teams, which would be about half of the division 1 teams. You will have teams with a .500 season or worse, losing season, in the tourney.

College football is about the only sport left where the regular season means everything to your championship hopes. lose once your chances diminish to near 0% of a championship. In weird years like last year you obviously get an exception. Lose twice in a tournament with 32 teams (which undoubtedly would happen to a ncaa football tourney) you have 2 and 3 loss teams getting in over undefeated MAC teams.

Nothing is going to be fair or good enough for those of you who want everything.

It is better off left alone.

Nice to see a BCS fan that realizes his team is reaping the benefits of the current system and doesn't want change. I always laugh when I see OSU fans whining about wanting a playoff, not realizing that the current system is set up specifically to ensure they always stay at the very top of the mountain.

Tek, for starters you say football is not a tournament sport, but every level of football has a tournament, except for Division 1A college football. NFL, Division 1-AA, Division II, Division III, High School, Arena League, CFL, etc, etc. Every other league in the world has a tournament, except for 1A college football. Don't tell me football is not a tournament sport.

As to #17 whining, or #33 whining, or whatever, it wouldn't be me. My feeling on the matter is quite simple, every team at a level of football should have the ability to control their own destiny from start to finish of every season. I don't care about Wild Cards, and you won't ever find me complaining about them, just as I don't complain about missing out on at large bids for the hoops tourney. College football doesn't need a playoff to crown a consensus national champion. No, college football needs a playoff because right now almost 1/2 of the teams at the 1A level are flat out not allowed to compete for a national title. Even if they go undefeated, they will not get a chance to play for a title.

All I ask is a simple 16 team tournament. Every conference champ gets a bid, and you take 5 at larges. The #6 at large team? Shut up and win your conference next year. I would use the sites of the current BCS bowls for the final rounds of the tournament. The remaining minor bowls could continue to co-exist alongside the tournament in the same way the NIT co-exists with the NCAA hoops tourney.

It's not terribly difficult to achieve. It doesn't cost any more class time than what the kids are losing at the lower divisions, or basketball. It gives every school in 1A a chance to run the table on the season and win a title. Most importantly, it also gets the non-BCS schools a piece of the larger pie. Unfortunately, that's exactly why it would never happen.

[Globetrotter]

This guy ha sa good argument against it:

"There are lots of reasons why I'm against a playoff. Scope/Mission Creep is certainly a big one. If you start with 4 or 8 teams, it will eventually become a larger field, and it will devalue the regular season.

The NCAA basketball tournament was an 8 team bracket 30 or so years ago. Today, it has ballooned to 65 teams, and there are many coaches who are pounding on the table demanding that it go to 96 or 128 teams. Scope/Mission Creep is unavoidable.

But that's not my biggest concern.
My issue is related to the NCAA's fundamental inability to develop a system whereby the "Best" eight teams make the playoffs. To architect a playoff system for college football today would require so much compromise, consensus building and caveats to get sign off, avoid Anti-Trust Law Suits from small conferences and to include all the appropriate TV Partners that it would create a dramatically more frustrating system than what we have today.

The Compromises:
To create a playoff of 8 teams, the NCAA presidents would have to agree to certain compromises with each other to get the deal done.

1. They would give preferential access to non-BCS teams who met certain criteria. This is done today with the BCS Bowls, and it is done entirely to avoid law suits. There is no way a playoff vote passes without a Boise, Hawaii or Utah having access if they crack the Top 8 or 10 in some sort of poll.

2. They would still give ND preferential access. This is done because the NCAA presidents can't count. They have 119 votes to Notre Dame's 1 vote, but they still cave to ND's demands for no apparent reason other than fear and TV.

3. The six BCS conference commissioners would NEVER sign off on a deal whereby their conference champ was shut out of an 8 team playoff. There would have to be automatic access for regular season champs.
Everyone likes to point to 2004 and say, "See. We need a playoff because undefeated Auburn didn't get to play for the title." I'd like to point you to 2006 and show a playoff won't work.

The final regular season poll from 2006 was:
Bowl Champ. Series Poll 2006:
1. Ohio State (Big 10 Champ)
2. Florida (SEC Champ)
3. Michigan
4. LSU
5. USC (Pac 10 Champ)
6. Louisville (Big East Champ)
7. Wisconsin
8. Boise State (Top Non-BCS Champ)
9. Auburn
10. Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)
11. Notre Dame
12. Arkansas
13. West Virginia
14. Wake Forest (ACC Champ)
Assumptions:
For the sake of argument, let's swap Oklahoma and Notre Dame.

Let's also assume that Notre Dame gets a waiver for the playoffs that ensures they make the 8 team bracket if they finish in the Top 10. For TV reasons, this is a VERY likely scenario.

Let's also assume that a Top 8 non-BCS conference team gets an automatic bid into the playoffs. This is another likely scenario to avoid lawsuits, and to get the non-BCS conference teams to vote for the tournament.
That means your seeds from the 2006 season would be:
#1 Seed Ohio State as Big 10 Champ
#2 Seed UF as SEC Champ
#3 Seed USC as Pac 10 Champ
#4 Seed Louisville as Big East Champ
#5 Seed Oklahoma as Big 12 Champ
#6 Seed Boise State as top non-BCS team
#7 Seed Notre Dame by virtue of finishing in Top 10 poll
#8 Seed Wake Forest as ACC Champ
Look at who doesn't make the playoffs in that scenario. Michigan (#3), LSU (#4) and Wisconsin (#7) are left out of that bracket. That's a better system than what we have now? One that excludes better teams who are fully capable of winning from participating?

In 2004, the at-large teams in a playoff would've been #4 Texas and #6 Utah. Cal (#5) and UGA (#7) would've been left out of the bracket in favor of #21 Pittsburgh and #13 Michigan (conference champs of their respective leagues). In 2005, #5 Oregon would've been shut out of the playoff system in favor of #22 FSU. And, there are other examples of a #6 or #7 team being shut out of the system for a team ranked sub-10 team.

Is that really more "fair" and less "frustrating" than our current system? Is that really "settling it on the field?" Is that the best way to "discover who is the best team?"html

The answer would be yes. It is more fair to allow more than 2 teams a chance at the national championship. How could it not be more fair.

[h2oville rocket]

What about the MAC, and all the other non BCS conferences>

You're an idiot.

First, most (i would say as high as 95%) of people who are fans of non BCS schools are also fans of BCS schools. 90% of those fans are fans of the BCS school first and fans of the non BCS school second.

You can boycott if you wish, but you will be the one missing out on the real football that is played in this country.

Where do you get your useless radical ideas anyways?


Plus, as someone else already said, a playoff as you want it, is not going to happen, it is not feasible for the schools. It only benefits the FOX network or whoever gets the contract to cover the games. It kills the tradition of the bowls, students missing school, costs of transportation is already up 110% + this year, it does not make any sense financially.

The only thing that you might see is a +1 system. where you take the top 4 teams of the BCS final standing and put 1 v 4 and 2 v 3. Winners play each other.

And then in three years you will still bitch because # 5 and 6 got left out when they had the same records as # 2 and 3.

If you have a 8 or 16 team playoff then you will bitch because 9 and 10 or 17 and 18 got left out when they beat someone who is in the playoffs, have the same record, but just didnt win their conference championship.

You will bitch no matter what happens so get over it and enjoy what you do have because it used to be up to the AP and the coaches before. In the pre BCS days nobody had to do anything to earn it. OSU wouldn't have had to have played Florida or LSU. They could have played some shitty PAC 10 team in the Rose Bowl and had won their third national title this year.

Unless, you are a closet OSU fan and that is what you would have prefered?

He baited you and once again you took it hook, line and sinker. You just cam't help yourself. Well played, GT. And by the way, tiki, you might want to check Ohio SU's Rose Bowl record before assuming they would beat that poor PAC 10 team- they are losers there more often than not.

[Globetrotter]

College football is just fine the way it is. So what if #3 always complains if they are left out of the BCS title game. Have an 8 team playoff, #9 will complain. 16 teams, #17 will complain. In hoops, numbers 35 through 45 complain all week until the NIT starts that they weren't one of 34 at-large bids. Life's not fair, so who cares.

I don't lose any sleep at night knowing Bowling Green can't win a national championship in football. Let the Ohio States of the world have the BCS fanfare. Beating Toledo is good enough for me. For me at least, at the end of the day in the Doyt it's more about being in Bowling Green and enjoying my what my school did for me that than it is about winning a football game.

I dont lose any sleep over it either but my fanatacism for the team would probably dwindle if I ever came to the realization that A MAC Championship is the best I can ever hope for.

[Falconfreak90]

Actually Tek I saw an article a while back ... I wish I could find it, but that would take a while, and it would have been on foxsports.com, sports.yahoo.com, sportsline.com, or espn.com, not really sure which. It stated a bunch of coaches who said they were in favor of at least a plus one - Tressel, Meyer, Stoops, some others too, but the common denominator was they had all won championships in the current system, and they felt it needed fixing. That definitely got me to thinking some about a plus one. That is a system I would be in favor of personally, but without a doubt a four team playoff would soon not be enough.

Phil Steele had an article in the 07 preview about the plus one system. His ideal system would have the bowls take place as they normally would, but with the top four playing each other in the final two BCS bowls, then have those two winners face off weeks later in the NFL bye week before the Super Bowl. Sounds interesting, it would keep some sort of college football happening between the first week of January and national signing day. Not sure I like it, but it was a good read.

Yes, a +1 system will be what you see IF you see anything...but the same concept applies...people will cry and throw a fit when their team gets left out that they will call for a + 3 system, then a + 5 etc. until we end up with a 16 team tournament.

Football is just not a sport for tournaments. Then to fill the seats (because fans especially the students will not want to shell out $500/ticket for a playoff game plus travel costs for 3 or 4 playoff games) the majority of tickets will be sold to corporate license holders..then you have a NFL atmosphere instead of a tradtional college atmosphere. Not many fans of the reaf fans of the schools will have seats...it will become more and more comercialized and it will ruin college football.

I know it will ruin it for me. I love college football for its differences from the NFL. I find the NFL boring and drawn out. That is what will happen to college if a playoff is installed and then the allotment of teams to get in grows and grows and grows.

Basketball is a tournament sport, football is not. Speaking of the NCAA tourney...they still bitch that there arent enough teams...people want that field to grow to 120 teams, which would be about half of the division 1 teams. You will have teams with a .500 season or worse, losing season, in the tourney.

College football is about the only sport left where the regular season means everything to your championship hopes. lose once your chances diminish to near 0% of a championship. In weird years like last year you obviously get an exception. Lose twice in a tournament with 32 teams (which undoubtedly would happen to a ncaa football tourney) you have 2 and 3 loss teams getting in over undefeated MAC teams.

Nothing is going to be fair or good enough for those of you who want everything.

It is better off left alone.

Nice to see a BCS fan that realizes his team is reaping the benefits of the current system and doesn't want change. I always laugh when I see OSU fans whining about wanting a playoff, not realizing that the current system is set up specifically to ensure they always stay at the very top of the mountain.

Tek, for starters you say football is not a tournament sport, but every level of football has a tournament, except for Division 1A college football. NFL, Division 1-AA, Division II, Division III, High School, Arena League, CFL, etc, etc. Every other league in the world has a tournament, except for 1A college football. Don't tell me football is not a tournament sport.

As to #17 whining, or #33 whining, or whatever, it wouldn't be me. My feeling on the matter is quite simple, every team at a level of football should have the ability to control their own destiny from start to finish of every season. I don't care about Wild Cards, and you won't ever find me complaining about them, just as I don't complain about missing out on at large bids for the hoops tourney. College football doesn't need a playoff to crown a consensus national champion. No, college football needs a playoff because right now almost 1/2 of the teams at the 1A level are flat out not allowed to compete for a national title. Even if they go undefeated, they will not get a chance to play for a title.

All I ask is a simple 16 team tournament. Every conference champ gets a bid, and you take 5 at larges. The #6 at large team? Shut up and win your conference next year. I would use the sites of the current BCS bowls for the final rounds of the tournament. The remaining minor bowls could continue to co-exist alongside the tournament in the same way the NIT co-exists with the NCAA hoops tourney.

It's not terribly difficult to achieve. It doesn't cost any more class time than what the kids are losing at the lower divisions, or basketball. It gives every school in 1A a chance to run the table on the season and win a title. Most importantly, it also gets the non-BCS schools a piece of the larger pie. Unfortunately, that's exactly why it would never happen.

Well said, Brian. That's exactly why the BCS conferences, more often than not, are against a playoff system...especially that dick commissioner Delaney of the BiG 11. They simply don't want to share the revenue. and folks like tiki wonder why the non BCS can't compete, in most cases, with the BCS teams on a regular basis. Hello??? Have you seen the disparity in bowl money between the BCS and non BCS? And don't give me this "BCS teams fill seats" garbage. At the top bowl level? Yes. The rest of the bowls? Not even close.

So glad to see non BCS teams count as wins to become bowl eligible but nothing is offered to the non BCS teams in return...like a shot at the national title IF a non BCS team can run the table...ala Boise State or Utah.

The problem is this is the BCS title and NOT the NCAA title. Every year, a BCS team is crowned champ by the BCS but the NCAA does NOT recognize it. LOL

I love college football too much not to watch any and all games I can. But the BCS has ruined college football and there is only one way to solve this, IMO. Playoffs. EVERY team in 1-A (or the FCS for you PC folks) should have a chance, however small it may be, to win the title. It works that way in EVERY other freakin sport in college athletics and, as Hammb pointed out, EVERY other division of college football.

The BCS is a monopoly that must be destroyed.

Carry on...less than 74 days til kickoff.

BEAT PITT

[Falconfreak90]

Actually I see more and more people coming out against a playoff. Only Tuberville (still pissed about being left out) and Paterno (old, senile and craps himself) are crying about it.

That's real classy of you Tiki....JoePa has forgetten more about football than you could hope to know in 500 years.

[BGSUVA]

It's simple, the reason we won't have a playoff is because Delaney doesn't want to see two SEC teams playing for the championship.

[NWLB]

Wow, how detached have I become, that this debate got underway without my being here to dump gas on the bonfire?

I think this year, for a change, we should all agree with the anti-BCS types, tell them they are totally right, hold a prayer vigil, and write our congressional representative.

Then we can come back the year after, and laugh at how absolutely nothing has changed, yet again, like every year, as always will be the case.

If anything, this debate is moot, exactly because we only move further away from a playoff each and every single year.

[MACMAN]

the change would take cash, or litigation. The more likely is network & Sponsor cash putting up for broadcast and name rights for a "NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP" but the likely hood and understand Im all for it, is about .00001%. to much money being made off the bowl match ups and the lie system in place now. there is a 1% chance that Litigation can perpetuate the need change to a fair system. Yet if that happens, there is a 99% chance that good ol boys will redraw the lines to form a separate division anyway.
So the reality is its meaningless post season bowl games for everyone!

[tekekini]

Actually Tek I saw an article a while back ... I wish I could find it, but that would take a while, and it would have been on foxsports.com, sports.yahoo.com, sportsline.com, or espn.com, not really sure which. It stated a bunch of coaches who said they were in favor of at least a plus one - Tressel, Meyer, Stoops, some others too, but the common denominator was they had all won championships in the current system, and they felt it needed fixing. That definitely got me to thinking some about a plus one. That is a system I would be in favor of personally, but without a doubt a four team playoff would soon not be enough.

Phil Steele had an article in the 07 preview about the plus one system. His ideal system would have the bowls take place as they normally would, but with the top four playing each other in the final two BCS bowls, then have those two winners face off weeks later in the NFL bye week before the Super Bowl. Sounds interesting, it would keep some sort of college football happening between the first week of January and national signing day. Not sure I like it, but it was a good read.

Yes, a +1 system will be what you see IF you see anything...but the same concept applies...people will cry and throw a fit when their team gets left out that they will call for a + 3 system, then a + 5 etc. until we end up with a 16 team tournament.

Football is just not a sport for tournaments. Then to fill the seats (because fans especially the students will not want to shell out $500/ticket for a playoff game plus travel costs for 3 or 4 playoff games) the majority of tickets will be sold to corporate license holders..then you have a NFL atmosphere instead of a tradtional college atmosphere. Not many fans of the reaf fans of the schools will have seats...it will become more and more comercialized and it will ruin college football.

I know it will ruin it for me. I love college football for its differences from the NFL. I find the NFL boring and drawn out. That is what will happen to college if a playoff is installed and then the allotment of teams to get in grows and grows and grows.

Basketball is a tournament sport, football is not. Speaking of the NCAA tourney...they still bitch that there arent enough teams...people want that field to grow to 120 teams, which would be about half of the division 1 teams. You will have teams with a .500 season or worse, losing season, in the tourney.

College football is about the only sport left where the regular season means everything to your championship hopes. lose once your chances diminish to near 0% of a championship. In weird years like last year you obviously get an exception. Lose twice in a tournament with 32 teams (which undoubtedly would happen to a ncaa football tourney) you have 2 and 3 loss teams getting in over undefeated MAC teams.

Nothing is going to be fair or good enough for those of you who want everything.

It is better off left alone.

Nice to see a BCS fan that realizes his team is reaping the benefits of the current system and doesn't want change. I always laugh when I see OSU fans whining about wanting a playoff, not realizing that the current system is set up specifically to ensure they always stay at the very top of the mountain.

Tek, for starters you say football is not a tournament sport, but every level of football has a tournament, except for Division 1A college football. NFL, Division 1-AA, Division II, Division III, High School, Arena League, CFL, etc, etc. Every other league in the world has a tournament, except for 1A college football. Don't tell me football is not a tournament sport.

As to #17 whining, or #33 whining, or whatever, it wouldn't be me. My feeling on the matter is quite simple, every team at a level of football should have the ability to control their own destiny from start to finish of every season. I don't care about Wild Cards, and you won't ever find me complaining about them, just as I don't complain about missing out on at large bids for the hoops tourney. College football doesn't need a playoff to crown a consensus national champion. No, college football needs a playoff because right now almost 1/2 of the teams at the 1A level are flat out not allowed to compete for a national title. Even if they go undefeated, they will not get a chance to play for a title.

All I ask is a simple 16 team tournament. Every conference champ gets a bid, and you take 5 at larges. The #6 at large team? Shut up and win your conference next year. I would use the sites of the current BCS bowls for the final rounds of the tournament. The remaining minor bowls could continue to co-exist alongside the tournament in the same way the NIT co-exists with the NCAA hoops tourney.

It's not terribly difficult to achieve. It doesn't cost any more class time than what the kids are losing at the lower divisions, or basketball. It gives every school in 1A a chance to run the table on the season and win a title. Most importantly, it also gets the non-BCS schools a piece of the larger pie. Unfortunately, that's exactly why it would never happen.

Let me be more specific. COLLEGE FOOTBALL is not a tournament sport (at least it shouldn't be). It works in the NFL because they are organizations who don't have to worry about funding, academics, fans travelling to far away neutral sites. They also are not afraid to put their foot down when there are cries to expand the field. There are also, nearly 100 less teams to worry about.

If you have a playoff, nearly half of the teams still do not have a chance to play for the national title from week 1. There is no general popular interest in seeing Northern Texas get swallowed whole by USC, UF, LSU, OSU, Texas, or who ever else they may get stuck against. No one wants to see that. It gives those teams a free pass on to the next round. No one will want to pay to see that game. Ticketes wouldn't sell and the networks don't want to shell out the big bucks for rights to cover such a weak game.

I don't think they are as worried about sharing money with the small schools as you think. 9 times out of 10 the small school is going to be 1 and done. They get to share money from that 1 game that they got to play.

It is about a worry about butts in the seats for the extra games, extremely high transportation costs for the schools and the fans, 85 kids missing more school (no matter what you say they would be out for exams and the beginning of classes for the next quarter or semester (depending on the school).

Has OSU benefitted from the current set up? Maybe but everyone is playing under the same rules so why hold it against them?

Like I said, you can whine and cry and bitch and moan and complain al you want. It doesn't help. Nothing will change. There isn't enough loyal fan support for the small schools to make it worthwhile. If they do have a playoff, the small schools will STILL be left out and then you will really throw a hissy fit.

[tekekini]

The easy solution is to keep the current system and just drop the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC and whatever other meaningless non BCS conference exists to NCAA-1AA (or whatever it is called now). Then you can go compete for a lower level national title in a playoff system and no one will care about it.

It is a sham that those schools are 1-A level anyways. If you cant even fill a 35,000 seat stadium to capacity you shouldn't be 1-A

If only I could make those decisions....

Enjoy.

[MarkL]

And the thread has derailed. What a shock.

OK ... so ... I just see way too many problems with the 16 team format, but I am a big fan of the +1 - that would clear out some of the controversy in recent years. Georgia and USC would have been able to compete for the national title last year, as I thought those two teams were the two best at the end of last season. Michigan would have had their opportunity for the 06/07 title, and Auburn would have had their opportunity in 04/05. As for the argument of why a MAC school, for example, couldn't be in in this format, I'd say take a hard look at Boise State, Utah, and Hawaii. They all finished the seasons undefeated. That included knocking off between them Texas A&M, Oregon State, and Washington, and finishing their conferences undefeated. The last time I can think of a MAC team finishing the MAC schedule undefeated was Miami in 03, but they lost to Iowa early in the season. Sure, that was a really good Iowa team, but still, they lost. If a mid-major team wants a shot at the BCS, or maybe even a national championship if the cards fall the right way, just win. If Central Michigan, for example, truly believes that they deserve to compete with the other big schools, they need to prove it on the field, and they have a golden opportunity when they visit Athens, GA. After all, if they can beat Georgia, they can certainly either beat or put up a really good fight against my pre-season top three - Florida, USC, Georgia. If they run in and get obliterated 70 - 7, that's proof they don't belong.

Yeah, I know, this follows the big school philosophy, but I really feel that only a truly special team like Boise or Utah should be able to play as a mid-major in the BCS bowls. The MAC has the ability to be a special conference, and I really feel it is taking a positive turn right now. I don't honestly believe that this coming year is a year where any MAC team can crack into the BCS bowls, but in 09-10, teams like CMU, Toledo, Ball State, and BG are going to have deep, experienced, talented teams. You never know.