NCAA Football getting crowded at the top

Veteran

1019

St. Louis

Subject: RE: NCAA Football getting crowded at the top

jacasa - 2012-11-02 3:17 PM

kevin_trapp - 2012-11-02 3:31 PM

jacasa - 2012-11-02 2:13 PM

kevin_trapp - 2012-11-02 10:14 AM

jacasa - 2012-11-01 5:05 PM

kevin_trapp - 2012-11-01 5:58 PM

jacasa - 2012-11-01 4:56 PM

JoshR - 2012-11-01 5:53 PM

jacasa - 2012-11-01 3:47 PM

tri808 - 2012-11-01 4:16 PM

I don't see 4 teams going undefeated. Schedules just look too tough. Certainly possible though, but I wouldn't bet on it.

That said...I've come to accept college football for what it is. It's all about money. They have no interest in crowning a true national champion. They never were. The fact is, there is no such thing as a NCAA college football national championship for division I. Why not...because having 30+ bowl games makes more money than a playoff system like college basketball, baseball, or any other NCAA sport that has a true national championship.

The BCS system now is not meant to be perfect. It's meant to make money. It does a good job of that, and it's still a better way to crown a "pretend" national champion than before we had the BCS. The 4 team playoff in the future will be better...but bottom line is that it's still about money...and it's still not a real national championship.

Every time this subject comes up I feel I need to remind everyone that it is very hard to dispute that the best team in college football has been crowned National Champion. Alabama this year, Auburn in 2011, Alabama in 2010, Florida in 2009, LSU in 2008, Florida in 2007 and so on. Why will a 4 team playoff be better? Fans of teams 5 and 6 will flood their message boards and talk radio with "we got screwed". I know I am in the minority, but leave the system alone. Every year it works itself out and will again this year when Alabama plays Oregon for the NC.

Every time you say that, we point out instances where you are mistaken and you don't reply.

Obviously it will be my opinion vs yours, but name one.

2004 undefeated SEC champion Auburn.

I am sure they can complain that they deserved a shot at the NC game. However, hard to argue that they were better than USC.

You said that every year the system works itself out. But when you have a school from one of the major powerhouse conferences end the season undefeated and not get a chance to play, I say that's a broken system. This isn't even getting in to the undefeated mid-major schools (I would argue Utah, TCU, and BSU deserved their shots), we're talking about an undefeated SEC team. Your whole argument appears to be that USC was better on paper. Screw it, let's just crown Alabama champions this year right now. There's no denying they're the best on paper, so why play the games?

The BCS has produced 14 national champions. In 2003/2004, there was a split national championship with the AP. In 2004/2005 there was an undefeated SEC team left out. Even if you assume all other years have been controversy free, that's only an 85% success rate of creating an undisputed national champion. For a system that was supposed to end the controversy, I would argue that it did not. You know who has had undisputed champion during every year of that same stretch, the FCS. Because they have a true playoff.

The season is the playoff. No matter what you set up, shy of allowing every D1 school in a playoff, you will have a fan base claim that they got screwed. A four team playoff will have the #5 and #6 team . An 8 team playoff will have the #9 and #10 . Nothing is perfect, including the current system. I still contend that it is hard to argue that the best team in college football has not been crowned NC at the end of the season.

The season is not a playoff if a team can finish undefeated and not have a chance to compete for the national championship. And the AP had no problems arguing that the BCS crowned the wrong team in 2003/2004.

So your telling me that had Ohio University beat Miami University and stayed undefeated they would deserve a shot at the NC? I don't buy that just because a team is undefeated they deserve a shot at the NC.

Short answer: I was referring specifically to the undefeated 2004/2005 SEC champions. I have never heard of a playoff where a team can win out and still not be considered champions. But if the season is a playoff, then that's exactly what happened to Auburn.

Long answer: YES! I believe a true playoff should include the winner of each conference. If you want to claim that the winner of the C-USA or the Sun Belt or any of the other mid-major conferences are not deserving of a spot in my hypothetical playoff, I won't argue that. But I would argue that if a conference is not good enough for a spot in the post-season, then they are not good enough to be an FBS conference. Either include them, or kick them out. Consolidate to 6 super conferences if you want. Independents, tell em to find a conference or head over to the FCS. But saying that Utah is good enough to be an FBS team, but they're not worthy of competing for the national championship when they finish undefeated, that's just flat out hypocritical.

If you set a playoffs up by conference winner, there is no more controversy. The bullsh!t national polls become irrelevant. Win your conference and you're in. You take the best of each sub-group, and let them play to find out who the best in the nation is. Novel idea.

And yes, I realize this will NEVER happen for so many reasons, including the fact that my beloved Irish are powerful enough to never be forced in to joining a conference. But this is my perfect world. In reality, just take the top 8 teams and be done with it.

NCAA Football getting crowded at the top (Page 4)

REGISTER TODAY