College Football Week 11 Discussion

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And I think this is the sort of post that will always find me on the other side of the argument. There's a sort of arrogant "you don't get it, so you're not worth it" type of attitude in a post like this.

Right or wrong, it's not the type of approach that is conducive to convincing other people you're right.

Right Chief because you are never arrogant or condescending in any of your posts

I just made a statement about him just caring about the national title and you inferred what you did from that. That's a stretch.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You guys are arguing with Rain that he is wrong. What you should be doing is noticing that fans like Rain are out there, and their number is increasing, IMO, the more years the BCS rolls along acting like nothing's wrong.

Uhm... No.

I'm not arguing with Rain that he is wrong. I think my (and the last handful of other poster's) posts are to let him know that there is way, way more to college football than worrying about who wins the championship. I think it is awesome now and I'd think it was awesome if there was a (small) tourney at the end of the season, too.

Realistically, though, if there is a tournament or not I (and most other fans) will still enjoy going to my team's home (and a handful of away) games with my friends and family that are alums, still follow the Big East conference games, still root against ACC teams doing well, still watch and root against Virginia Tech/Michigan/Notre Dame/Pitt/etc., still watch as many games per week as I possibly can, still be excited and watch rivalry games, and still have some semblance of satisfaction if my team wins its bowl game.

There is very little difference in my enjoyment of the sport, regardless of the method a national championship is awarded. I'm fine with the BCS putting the top 2 ranked teams together for a championship game and I'd be fine with the top 4 ranked teams playing together for a championship -- either way, the 3rd best or 5th best team is going to be left out. In nearly all years, that is not going to be WVU or about 105 other teams, so it really isn't something that causes me to lose sleep.

[Young Drachma]

College basketball might not have "games that matter" all season long, but the matchups are infinitely more interesting during the non-conference season, because teams can test themselves knowing it's not going to torpedo their post-season chances.

Bowl games are only marginally interesting because you sometimes get cool matchups between teams that rarely/never play each other and that can be fun to see how they stack up.

So while the matchups are interesting to diehard fans and those who get to tune in, the average fan who lives in a place that's not crazed, didn't go to a FBS institution or root for a team that stinks are on the outside and the season pretty much ends from Day 1.

That's not an argument for a playoff, necessarily, but I don't think playoff proponents care about what SEC/Pac-10/B10/B12 team has an annual claim to the "national championship" they want to see good matchups, interesting battles and if it means that there's a Cinderella every few years? All the more interesting.

It's about the drama, not the end result.

But honestly, the current system is better than any playoff they can concoct, because that'll surely (as has been said by others) just reinforce the notion that other conferences are preeminent and make it harder for second-tier leagues to get a whiff of it.

The outcry, coupled with the performance of the non-BCS schools relative performance in BCS games has shamed voters into ignoring their resumes and rewarding performance on the field, by and large. I prefer that over some sham system that forces them to jump through more hoops, unless we get a system that really does allow for better regular season matchups.

Go Chattanooga.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Hey I understand your point and Rain's to want a playoff. I don't agree but I understand that you guys are out there, but to say there are no good games and they don't matter is a bit outrageous in my opinion. If I have learned anything from watching College Football it is to expect the unexpected when an underdog plays a highly ranked team.

And the other thing I have learned...is that I wouldn't bet that there will be a playoff anytime soon. It isn't happening.

Chief you are a UCLA fan, remember when they upset Miami earlier in the decade (or late 90s I'm getting old) and cost the Canes a chance at the title? Look at Pitt upsetting WVU, LSU getting to the title game and winning with 2 losses. Even for the teams not in the top 3-5, they play and feel like they have an outside shot.

Okay so you guys want a playoff, which is fine. So now we have 6 teams who under most playoff structures would have their spots sewn up. So what incentive do they have to play these last 2 weeks of the season? None. So that makes those games meaningless. So I can throw the meaningless game argument right back at you.

Yeah, I was trying to distance myself from Rain's (IMO) extremist stance because I don't agree with that. I see the trend towards it, though. Perhaps it's silly to say most games don't matter, but it's not silly to say most games matter very little. Did Ohio State-Penn State matter last weekend, in the bigger scheme of things? Yup, one of the bigger games of the year. But it's hard for me to care. Because going in, I didn't think either team would make the title game, so they're just playing for a spot in a "championship-meaningless" bowl game that will only get their own fans and some ardent hardcore college football fans excited.

Now recast that game as a pivotal game for the Big Ten's one spot in the playoff, and that game becomes a lot more interesting to me. Now one of those teams might make it into the playoff, and might end up with a shot at the title. Point is, a playoff may make some games meaningless, but it can than provide value to other games that are now meaningless. Plus, you argue about six teams having spots locked up, and now their games are meaningless. Even if I accept that argument (and not entirely sure I do 100%), the fact is that the meaningful games still exist--only now they are played in the playoffs. Those games aren't even being played right now, but they would be of tremendous interest. I would watch start to finish 100 quarter final games in a playoff system before I would watch more than 15 minutes of a non-title game Rose Bowl that didn't involve a team I had a stake in.

At this point, college football doesn't really have my viewership or interest, except for the handful of games UCLA is playing, and some of the other conference schools and rooting against South Central.

Oh, and stick a dagger in my heart, Sak. That wasn't UCLA ruining Miami's chances (Cade McNown, Edgerrin James). See 1998 BCS race.

And, yeah, I am resigned to the fact that the people who most vehemently object to the concept of the college football playoff system are the ones holding the cards right now and those of us who want change are left out in the cold.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And I think this is the sort of post that will always find me on the other side of the argument. There's a sort of arrogant "you don't get it, so you're not worth it" type of attitude in a post like this.

Right or wrong, it's not the type of approach that is conducive to convincing other people you're right.

If you don't care about it now, why would a tournament make you more interested in caring about who wins the Big 10. As you well know, the Rose Bowl matches the champion or an elite team from your favorite conference against the champion or an elite team from the Big 10. If that doesn't interest you already, why would seeing the 3rd or 4th place Big 10 team play against the #1 or #2 ranked team in the country (in a 16 team tournament)?

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Oh, and stick a dagger in my heart, Sak. That wasn't UCLA ruining Miami's chances (Cade McNown, Edgerrin James). See 1998 BCS race.

Doh! Sorry about that...I intentionally bring up the WVU/Pitt thing to jab at Swaggs, but that was a brainfart on my part!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Right Chief because you are never arrogant or condescending in any of your posts

I just made a statement about him just caring about the national title and you inferred what you did from that. That's a stretch.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It cuts both ways, BTW. Plenty of people on the other side who sit there proclaiming they're right, the BCS is crap, we need playoffs, and everyone who doesn't buy into it is baloney.

Really, it's not anything specific to this argument but any argument on this board where there are entrenched philosophies on whatever the subject may be, and too often, the proponents of either side don't seem too open to trying to understand the perspective of the other (and I have done it plenty of times, too).

See bold. Obviously you missed this post. I don't excuse myself from doing the same thing. It's wrong when I do it, and wrong when you do it.

And I don't think it's a stretch. Your post I quoted before was all about "my way is better than your way so go watch meaningless games in the NFL if that's what you like nyah nyah". It's that kind of presumption of superiority that I am talking about. It's annoying and very close minded to those who disagree with you.

And as I also said, we all do it, and I wish we wouldn't.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And I don't think it's a stretch. Your post I quoted before was all about "my way is better than your way so go watch meaningless games in the NFL if that's what you like nyah nyah". It's that kind of presumption of superiority that I am talking about. It's annoying and very close minded to those who disagree with you.
.

I disagree because it was said how the NFL has more meaningful games but by the time you get to weeks 15-17 there are very few meaningful games. It's the truth whether I stick my tongue out when I say it or not.

[Chief Rum]

Oh, and I will say, this is probably one of those moments where the Internet is its usual inconsistent and vague medium. I don't for one second think Brian thinks Rain's opinions are squat. Brian has a lot of great opinions and passion about college football, and I love that. I'm just saying, from my perspective, perhaps standing on a point in disagreement on an issue, there is to me the perception of a bit of an arrogance to a response like that. And it's the type of thing we see in all Internet arguments, about football, politics, the actual date of the coming zombie apocalypse, etc.

Every year I see these sorts of arguments break down into nastiness/bitterness/etc. with no one changing the other's minds, and I think one of the primary reasons is that we all are so entrenched in our own ideas, we're not as open to the concepts put forth by others as we could be.

And just want to note I am entirely guilty of this, too, probably even done it in this thread.

[Dr. Sak]

I'll add two more points:

1) I don't always express my points well with the written word. That's why I podcasted.
2) I can be a bit of a dick (but I at least admit it)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Uhm... No.

I'm not arguing with Rain that he is wrong. I think my (and the last handful of other poster's) posts are to let him know that there is way, way more to college football than worrying about who wins the championship. I think it is awesome now and I'd think it was awesome if there was a (small) tourney at the end of the season, too.

Realistically, though, if there is a tournament or not I (and most other fans) will still enjoy going to my team's home (and a handful of away) games with my friends and family that are alums, still follow the Big East conference games, still root against ACC teams doing well, still watch and root against Virginia Tech/Michigan/Notre Dame/Pitt/etc., still watch as many games per week as I possibly can, still be excited and watch rivalry games, and still have some semblance of satisfaction if my team wins its bowl game.

There is very little difference in my enjoyment of the sport, regardless of the method a national championship is awarded. I'm fine with the BCS putting the top 2 ranked teams together for a championship game and I'd be fine with the top 4 ranked teams playing together for a championship -- either way, the 3rd best or 5th best team is going to be left out. In nearly all years, that is not going to be WVU or about 105 other teams, so it really isn't something that causes me to lose sleep.

And that's where we may differ.

As I said earlier, I certainly don't buy in to Rain's stance wholesale because that would be a lie. I can watch a college football game between any two teams, meaning or not, and get enjoyment from it purely for the game itself, because I love football, I love the passion in college sports, and the anything can happen sorta atmosphere when you get a bunch of essentially kids playing a game with high stakes and emotion, but who aren't physically and mentally mature enough to be true professionals at it.

I do still get enjoyment out of the current football system, even games not involving teams I follow (or hate).

But I would also be lying to say that my general interest in the other conferences would jump ten fold if it led to a playoff system.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If you don't care about it now, why would a tournament make you more interested in caring about who wins the Big 10. As you well know, the Rose Bowl matches the champion or an elite team from your favorite conference against the champion or an elite team from the Big 10. If that doesn't interest you already, why would seeing the 3rd or 4th place Big 10 team play against the #1 or #2 ranked team in the country (in a 16 team tournament)?

Because the playoff creates a more significant value to me in that one Big Ten spot that is for certain available. At that point, those teams are playing for a spot that could get them a national title. And that is far more significant to me than who wins the Rose Bowl (non-title version). I might care a little more on a personal level, of course, if UCLA was also possibly going to the Rose Bowl, but of course, at this point in time, that's not a factor (sadly).

A playoff gets me more interested even when teams I don't have a stake in are involved.

And I think there's a disconnect there between bowl proponents and playoff proponents, because bowl proponents are happy enough as is, and don't see a playoff as something that will get them more interested. They can't see the void playoff proponents see, so it's a "they don't know what they're missing" kinda thing. And, hey, if you're a bowl proponent, that's great for you. But for playoff proponents, it's a little sad, because we want to have more interest, but, well, it's just harder for us to get involved if we don't think it matters.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I disagree because it was said how the NFL has more meaningful games but by the time you get to weeks 15-17 there are very few meaningful games. It's the truth whether I stick my tongue out when I say it or not.

Yeah, I can see the straight fact of that. I think it comes down to the imperfect medium of the Internet. It makes it harder to read the true intended meanings without all of the unspoken communication that goes on in a direct conversation.

That's not meant to concede the meaningless games point, though. I would argue there are as many meaningless games in college football--early and late--as there are in the NFL (as a percentage, of course).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I'll add two more points:

1) I don't always express my points well with the written word. That's why I podcasted.
2) I can be a bit of a dick (but I at least admit it)

Ditto to both points for myself. I, however, lack the technical skills to podcast, so you guys will have to wade your way through what I mean and what I seem to mean to determine if I'm making a reasonable point or am just being a bit of a dick.

I found most people would rather not go through the trouble, so they just assume I am being a dick.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Doh! Sorry about that...I intentionally bring up the WVU/Pitt thing to jab at Swaggs, but that was a brainfart on my part!

Heh...no worries, BTW. I knew what you were driving at.

Stupid Bob Toledo defense.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

A playoff gets me more interested even when teams I don't have a stake in are involved.

I think it is easy to say that now, but, in a 16-team playoff, is an opening round set of games like Cincy vs Oklahoma State, TCU vs Iowa, Georgia Tech vs Ohio State, or Pitt vs LSU playoff game really going to interest you anymore than, say the current Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl set up does? I'm guessing you aren't calling off work to watch any of those games if you aren't currently interested in watching the BCS games.

If you go to a smaller tournament, like 4-teams, I think that would be fine -- but then we're leaving out Boise State and probably TCU (I think Cincy passes them if they both stay undefeated) again and will likely have the Alabama/Florida loser in ahead of all Boise State/TCU/Cincy. If a one-loss SEC team wins the championship here, are they the champion over an undefeated Boise State/TCU/Cincy?

If you go 8-teams, are we just taking the top 8 highest ranked BCS teams? Because right now, there is a decent chance that the Pac 10 (the overall best conference this season) and B10 are getting shut out, with the ACC a Georgia Tech slip up away from being out. Or, if we take the 6 BCS conference champs + 2, are we leaving out the Alabama/Florida loser in favor of TCU or Boise State?

I don't think the BCS is perfect, but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying the season and following for all the reasons I listed above. I just don't see how any of the tournament options do not have just as big of warts as the current one.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think it is easy to say that now, but, in a 16-team playoff, is an opening round set of games like Cincy vs Oklahoma State, TCU vs Iowa, Georgia Tech vs Ohio State, or Pitt vs LSU playoff game really going to interest you anymore than, say the current Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl set up does? I'm guessing you aren't calling off work to watch any of those games if you aren't currently interested in watching the BCS games.

Actually yes, maybe I'm wierd but it has direct national championship implications. Barring a scenario where both teams in the NC game look like total crap and the #3 or #4 team looks so good in their bowl they have a chance to pass #1 in the human polls, right now the current bowl setup has me having very little interest in the other BCS bowls if USC (or a team I know a lot about like UCLA or Oregon) isn't playing in it.

Call me a crappy fan or a fan with a low attention span, but I watch games that have championship implications. I watch the NFL playoffs religiously even if the Chargers aren't involved. College football bowls that aren't my team and don't have championship implications - meh. If there is a 16 team playoffs and you take roughly the 16 teams in the country that have the best shot at winning the championship (allowing some concessions for conference winners that may be slightly weaker than other teams that didn't win their conference in some years, I'm perfectly OK with that) I'm watching every game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Hey I understand your point and Rain's to want a playoff. I don't agree but I understand that you guys are out there, but to say there are no good games and they don't matter is a bit outrageous in my opinion. If I have learned anything from watching College Football it is to expect the unexpected when an underdog plays a highly ranked team

Chief you are a UCLA fan, remember when they upset Miami earlier in the decade (or late 90s I'm getting old) and cost the Canes a chance at the title? Look at Pitt upsetting WVU, LSU getting to the title game and winning with 2 losses. Even for the teams not in the top 3-5, they play and feel like they have an outside shot.

Okay so you guys want a playoff, which is fine. So now we have 6 teams who under most playoff structures would have their spots sewn up. So what incentive do they have to play these last 2 weeks of the season? None. So that makes those games meaningless. So I can throw the meaningless game argument right back at you.

I don't even need a playoff. I just want good games. I don't want to see the best team in the nation with the best player in the nation schedule Florida International, Troy, and Charleston. I don't want to have to wait till January before Cincinnati and Texas are forced to play a top school. We are likely going to see a Texas Longhorn team in the championship game that will have one win over a top 25 team all season.

And that's the problem with the system. It's built not to play your way into a championship, it's to just not screw up. It's to pad your schedule lightly enough so that you are never threatened in out-of-conference play and then to just survive the one or two tests you'll get in conference play. A powerhouse like Florida has not left the state of Florida in almost 20 years to play a non-conference game.

And the result of this is typically untested teams playing in a National Championship they don't belong in. Since 1998, 7 of the 11 games have been decided by double digits. You have teams like the 2006 and 2007 Ohio State Buckeyes making it when they had no business being there (and the results showed). A 2004 Oklahoma Sooners team who got in over a much better Auburn squad and rightfully get slaughtered.

I just want a system that has teams having to win big games to get into the championship. So that the teams in the championship game are not the ones that didn't get upset, but the ones that beat some great teams to get there. The system is built for teams to avoid risk at all cost when risk is what adds the drama to the sport.

But the proof is in the pudding. Look at this weeks schedule and tell me what games you are excited about. Which games have a big imapct on the national title picture and you wouldn't miss it?

Look at the 10 headlines in the college football section on ESPN. 7 are about coaches, 1 is about some redshirt freshman on a bad football team getting arrested, another on Penn State's season ticket prices, and finally one game related story about an injury to a player. 1 out of 10 stories pertains to an actual game or player that has played. No Heisman talk, no previews of big matchups, no analysis of a great game from the week before. That is what happens when you don't have a lot of interesting stuff going on on the field. You're left with debating head coaches instead of actual games and players.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think it is easy to say that now, but, in a 16-team playoff, is an opening round set of games like Cincy vs Oklahoma State, TCU vs Iowa, Georgia Tech vs Ohio State, or Pitt vs LSU playoff game really going to interest you anymore than, say the current Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl set up does? I'm guessing you aren't calling off work to watch any of those games if you aren't currently interested in watching the BCS games.

Of course it would. They are all playing for a championship and their seasons are on the line. The Orange and Sugar Bowl are consolation games that mean nothing.

I think I've watched every NFL playoff game over the last 10 years. I would not have any interest in seeing them airing a consolation game for 5th place.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Since 1998, 7 of the 11 games have been decided by double digits. You have teams like the 2006 and 2007 Ohio State Buckeyes making it when they had no business being there (and the results showed).

Please explain how the 2006 Ohio State team did not deserve to be in the national title game.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Anyone who says OU is on par with ND is wrong. Oklahoma is a great program, but Notre Dame kind of transcends football.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Agreed. If, for example, Texas decided to join the Big 10 as their 12th team, and the Big 12 folded, Oklahoma isn't getting their own major network deal. That pretty much says it all. Lots of programs like to think they are on the same level as Notre Dame, but if they were, they would be independents (with teams like USC, Michigan, etc. lining up to play them) and have their own sweetheart deals with NBC and the BCS.

It pains me to say, but that is pretty much all you need to say about the comparisons between Notre Dame and other programs.

But the question isn't about Oklahoma vs. ND in a long-term or ideal world. It's about which job is better for Stoops, and considering the recent success of Oklahoma comparatively and the fact it was Stoops who led them to that success - i.e. buying himself some extra rope to survive a couple down seasons - moving to ND from Oklahoma wouldn't be an upward move for him.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

TCU and Boise State can't make the Championship game.

TCU is one loss away from being in line for the championship game. The only way (preseason unranked) Cincy passes them is if Cincy deserves it by looking good against a top 10 team in their season finale in addition to their multiple road wins vs. top 25 teams.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you had the choice of watching two 10-5 teams battle in Week 17 for a playoff spot or two 4-11 teams playing in the NFL, you'd take the first choice almost every time. In fact, if you're an NFL fan, you'd probably go out of your way to watch the game.

All I'm saying is that games that matter draw more interest. There aren't a lot of games that matter in college football.

Nobody's arguing the first point (although I could make the argument based on, for example, ND-Pitt drawing higher ratings than Cincy-Pitt) but the second one is where opinion matters and where you lose actual college football fans.

You talk about 4-11 teams vs. 10-5 teams as if it helps your argument, but that just proves ours. There are maybe 4-5 games that matter in week 17 of the NFL, and both those 4-11 teams haven't played for anything in at least 3 weeks. In college you'd still have rivalries and teams fighting to make a bowl game. Not to mention the Patriots have been beaten soundly by the main division rival, and lost 2 gut-wrenching games we were winning in the 4th quarter against 2 huge conference rivals.... and while each one sucked I've shook them off an hour after the game because they've barely affected our position to compete for the title. Meanwhile ND has lost 4 games in the final minute, I'm apopleptic, and the whole country is trying to fire our coach. You tell me which games matter more there.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What are you really looking forward to seeing this weekend?

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Cal and Stanford
Penn State and Michigan State (BCS Bid possibly on the line)
LSU and Ole Miss
BYU and Air Force
Oklahoma and Texas Tech
Oregon and Arizona (Oregon in the driver seat for Pac 10 title)

I'll probably find 3 or 4 other games that peak my interest flipping through also.

If all you care about is the national title and end result then you are missing a lot of good football in between.

I'll add in ND-UConn (obvious reasons)
TCU-Wyoming (who I saw give Texas a game for the 1st half this year and gives a chance to compare the 2 vs. a common opponent)
Wisconsin-Northwestern (potential BCS vs. potential ND coach)
Duke-Miami (can Duke make a bowl? will Miami live up to potential?)
UNC-BC (2 underrated teams; possible ACC title game ramifications)
Virginia-Clemson (same)
Mississippi St-Arkansas (2 interesting teams that have played great at times)
Kansas St-Nebraska (to decide who plays Texas in the B12CG, and whether KSU makes a bowl)

I'm sorry if none of those 16 games interest you, but I really question how much more interest you or CR would have in them if a playoff were in place.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

For instance, I haven't watched a Big Ten game all year. No real reason to. No desire to. These games are played to lead to the championship of a conference I don't give a fig about, and the BCS hasn't given me a reason to suddenly start caring. And it all culminates in a bowl season where I watch at best 15 minutes on average of even major bowl games--and that's because it's the holidays and there's nothing better to do until Sunday.

Well, the Big 10 is a bad argument because they tend to play boring games , but there are plenty of other conferences worth watching. I've watched numerous Pac 10 games like USC-Stanford or Oregon-Arizona St even though I couldn't care less about any of the institutions and they have no impact on the national title game.

And I'm not purposefully trying to be a dick (always a terrible way to start a sentence - almost as bad as "I'm not a racist, but" ), but if you only watch 15 minutes of matchups like TCU-Boise, Oregon-OK St, Houston-Air Force, Utah-Alabama, Texas-Ohio St while waiting for Sundays, then you're not really a college football fan. You're an NFL fan who watches the college games as a diversion or when you care about the institutions. Which there is nothing wrong with (I'm probably in the minority because I'd rather watch Bearcats-Panthers than Bengals-Steelers), but those of us who do love college football aren't interested in changing the system in the hopes that NFL-first fans start caring more. It's like the NHL trying to appeal to southern fans or fans who don't want violence instead of making the game better for the hardcore fans.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't even need a playoff. I just want good games. I don't want to see the best team in the nation with the best player in the nation schedule Florida International, Troy, and Charleston. I don't want to have to wait till January before Cincinnati and Texas are forced to play a top school. We are likely going to see a Texas Longhorn team in the championship game that will have one win over a top 25 team all season.

And that's the problem with the system. It's built not to play your way into a championship, it's to just not screw up. It's to pad your schedule lightly enough so that you are never threatened in out-of-conference play and then to just survive the one or two tests you'll get in conference play.

First of all Tim Tebow hasn't even been one of the 10 best QB's in the country this year. Secondly you're complaining preseason unranked, unheralded Cincinnati "not playing a top school" (except, umm, next week at top 10 Pitt?) and backing their way into a championship game while complaining about Texas' schedule which contained preseason #2 Oklahoma and numerous other ranked teams. I'm not going to absolve the OOC games against cupcakes, but it's disingenous and inconsistent with your other arguments when Cincinnati-Rutgers in Week 1 and Cincinnati-Oregon State in week 3 were huge games that mattered and Texas had multiple preseason top 25 teams on the schedule.

You're second paragraph is even more absurd. As I've pointed out in past posts every year there haven't been 2 undefeated teams there's a debate on who gets in, and every year it goes to the team with the tougher schedule. Undefeated SEC teams have lost out when 1 more good OOC game would have gotten them in, 1-loss Big 12/SEC/PAC-10/Big 10 teams have lost out when 1 more good OOC game would have gotten them in. And you somehow still claim/think that an 8/16 team playoff will increase the incentive for the powerhouse top 5 programs to schedule dangerous OOC games instead of scheduling cupcakes and finishing the season with 1-2 conference losses. When LSU (2 losses in conference, hardest OOC game Washington) would get in over Oklahoma (same 2 losses in conference, but also losses to BYU and Miami OOC). Virginia Tech would probably be out now, but in if they beat a cupcake instead of losing to Alabama OOC. Same with Oregon and Boise St., or Stanford and Wake Forest, or Clemson and TCU, or Oklahoma St and Houston.

And the result of this is typically untested teams playing in a National Championship they don't belong in. Since 1998, 7 of the 11 games have been decided by double digits. You have teams like the 2006 and 2007 Ohio State Buckeyes making it when they had no business being there (and the results showed). A 2004 Oklahoma Sooners team who got in over a much better Auburn squad and rightfully get slaughtered.

What absurd hindsight.

2006 Ohio State went to Texas and won and then played a de-facto semifinal game against undefeated #2 Michigan to end the regular season. They looked infinitely better during the regular season than the 2002 team which beat juggernaut Miami. Meanwhile 1-loss Florida made it over an arguably more deserving Michigan team because the voters didn't want to see a rematch.

2007 Ohio State was one of 2 1-loss teams (the other being Kansas who missed the BCS entirely) with 7 2-loss teams arguing their case. Again, if anything LSU was the team that didn't deserve to be in.

2004 Oklahoma was undefeated, had beaten 3 ranked teams, including giving #5 Texas it's only loss, and just come off a 42-3 win in the B12CG before they ran into that USC buzzsaw while Auburn won 16-13 over a lackluster 3-loss Virginia Tech team in the Orange Bowl.

The biggest problem with the current system is the month+ layoff before the Championship game, not any of those 3 being chosen.

I just want a system that has teams having to win big games to get into the championship. So that the teams in the championship game are not the ones that didn't get upset, but the ones that beat some great teams to get there. The system is built for teams to avoid risk at all cost when risk is what adds the drama to the sport.

What's especially ironic from the playoff proponents is the titanic Alabama-Florida showdown in 3 weeks. It's going to be a defacto semifinal game - just as OSU-Mich was in 2006 - and under a playoff it would be an underwhelming game where each team was probing for weaknesses in case they met again later when it did matter - like almost every NFL regular-season game between title contendors.

Look at the 10 headlines in the college football section on ESPN. 7 are about coaches, 1 is about some redshirt freshman on a bad football team getting arrested, another on Penn State's season ticket prices, and finally one game related story about an injury to a player. 1 out of 10 stories pertains to an actual game or player that has played. No Heisman talk, no previews of big matchups, no analysis of a great game from the week before. That is what happens when you don't have a lot of interesting stuff going on on the field.

No, that's what happens when you listen to the media, particularly ESPN.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think I've watched every NFL playoff game over the last 10 years. I would not have any interest in seeing them airing a consolation game for 5th place.

11 playoff games a year, plus maybe 9-10 elimination games the last 2 weeks of the regular season. That gives you 20 NFL games "that matter" when it comes to the title.

In college, Oregon (preseason #16) TCU (preseason #17) Iowa (#22) Cincinnati (#33) and Miami (#35) have all been in the title game discussion at times, and Oklahoma, USC, Ole Miss, LSU, Oklahoma St, have all been in the top 5. So it means that in the month of September alone games like Cincinnati-Rutgers, South Carolina-Ole Miss, TCU-Clemson, Iowa-Northern Iowa, Miami-Georgia Tech, Miami-Virginia Tech, BYU-Oklahoma, USC-Washington, Oklahoma St-Houston, Alabama-Arkansas, LSU-Miss St, Boise St-Oregon, Cincinnati-Fresno St, Cincinnati-Oregon St, Florida-Tennessee, Texas-Texas Tech, Oklahoma St-Georgia, Virginia Tech-Alabama, LSU-Georgia, Iowa-Penn St, Notre Dame-Michigan were all fun games to watch with title implications at the time. i.e. games "that matter"(ed), whether you cared about them at the time or not. You can claim using hindsight that most of them won't end up mattering, but that's not the point - we didn't know week 1 that Cincinnati-Rutgers would have more of an effect on the national title race than BYU's huge upset of Oklahoma.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

College basketball might not have "games that matter" all season long, but the matchups are infinitely more interesting during the non-conference season, because teams can test themselves knowing it's not going to torpedo their post-season chances.

Bowl games are only marginally interesting because you sometimes get cool matchups between teams that rarely/never play each other and that can be fun to see how they stack up.

So while the matchups are interesting to diehard fans and those who get to tune in, the average fan who lives in a place that's not crazed, didn't go to a FBS institution or root for a team that stinks are on the outside and the season pretty much ends from Day 1.

It's about the drama, not the end result.

College basketball has a format (partly because the sport is conducive to it) where all the important games are packed into a 3-week span at the end of the year. College football unfolds over a 4-month span. You say that college basketball OOC games are infinitely more interesting than football, I say that one Alabama-Virginia Tech or USC-Ohio St has more drama and effect on the national title than every OOC bball game combined. It's a cliched argument, but when you can win a national title with 7-10 losses, and almost every team has 3 or 4, it diminishes the importance of any one in particular until the tournament.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Orange and Sugar Bowl are consolation games that mean nothing to RainMaker

Fixed that for you.

I think I've watched every NFL playoff game over the last 10 years.

Whereas I find a random 2nd or even 3rd tier bowl game more interesting than at least 75% of NFL playoff games

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Ah, the Stoops to *insert team name* rumors again. Stoops said Cowherd's "sources" are absolutely wrong and he's not going anywhere. Yes, I'm biased, but wouldn't most consider Notre Dame a step down for Stoops?

No

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Cal and Stanford
Penn State and Michigan State (BCS Bid possibly on the line)
LSU and Ole Miss
BYU and Air Force
Oklahoma and Texas Tech
Oregon and Arizona (Oregon in the driver seat for Pac 10 title)

I'll probably find 3 or 4 other games that peak my interest flipping through also.

If all you care about is the national title and end result then you are missing a lot of good football in between. So Florida and Bama don't have great games this week but looking ahead to next week you have Florida/FSU and Bama/Auburn. Rivalry games where games are usually closer than expected.

Go enjoy the NFL game where playoff races are decided in Week 15 and teams rest their starters for the playoff run...wait that can't be because all the games matter right?

I will be at the Air Force game to see if we can hand our old 80s rivals a surprise and steal the #2 Mountain Conference spot

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I will be at the Air Force game to see if we can hand our old 80s rivals a surprise and steal the #2 Mountain Conference spot

I would normally say not happening but I don't know which BYU team will show up this season..

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I would normally say not happening but I don't know which BYU team will show up this season..

Somewhat agree that being said Air Force is 7-4 with overtime losses at Navy by 3 and Utah by 6 along with a 20-17 loss at TCU. They also lost to Minnesota 2013 a game they led most of the way until the 4th qtr and it was stadium opening for the Gophers. Air Force is the number 2 rushing team and BYU is the number 14 passing team in the national. Both teams have good defenses. I would anticipate the fact the game is at BYU will be the deciding factor.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Please explain how the 2006 Ohio State team did not deserve to be in the national title game.

I did not think they were the 2nd best team in the nation. And Florida did a good job exposing that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You talk about 4-11 teams vs. 10-5 teams as if it helps your argument, but that just proves ours. There are maybe 4-5 games that matter in week 17 of the NFL, and both those 4-11 teams haven't played for anything in at least 3 weeks. In college you'd still have rivalries and teams fighting to make a bowl game. Not to mention the Patriots have been beaten soundly by the main division rival, and lost 2 gut-wrenching games we were winning in the 4th quarter against 2 huge conference rivals.... and while each one sucked I've shook them off an hour after the game because they've barely affected our position to compete for the title. Meanwhile ND has lost 4 games in the final minute, I'm apopleptic, and the whole country is trying to fire our coach. You tell me which games matter more there.

You are creating narratives for each game. I could do that with any NFL game. Talk about some coach on the hot seat, a rookie starting his first game, etc. When I say games that matter, I'm talking about matter in the scheme of the championship.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'll add in ND-UConn (obvious reasons)
TCU-Wyoming (who I saw give Texas a game for the 1st half this year and gives a chance to compare the 2 vs. a common opponent)
Wisconsin-Northwestern (potential BCS vs. potential ND coach)
Duke-Miami (can Duke make a bowl? will Miami live up to potential?)
UNC-BC (2 underrated teams; possible ACC title game ramifications)
Virginia-Clemson (same)
Mississippi St-Arkansas (2 interesting teams that have played great at times)
Kansas St-Nebraska (to decide who plays Texas in the B12CG, and whether KSU makes a bowl)

The only game there that matters in the Championship picture is TCU (who still need a lot to happen to get in). It is a game against a bad team and they will be up by 20 at halftime. I doubt anyone is really going to be watching this. The other games are just jockeying for position in one of the consolation games.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm sorry if none of those 16 games interest you, but I really question how much more interest you or CR would have in them if a playoff were in place.Well, the Big 10 is a bad argument because they tend to play boring games , but there are plenty of other conferences worth watching. I've watched numerous Pac 10 games like USC-Stanford or Oregon-Arizona St even though I couldn't care less about any of the institutions and they have no impact on the national title game.

A 16-team playoff would give you 4 weeks of incredible football games between top ranked teams. The regular season would have much more value to teams who happened to lose a game early on. No longer is your championship hopes dashed by a Week 1 loss. If you use conference championships as a form of qualification in some sense, that adds even more to those matchups you mentioned above where teams can make the playoffs. Clemson is currently fighting to win the ACC, but they could be fighting for a shot at the playoffs as well under a different system. You are just adding more drama to the game.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And I'm not purposefully trying to be a dick (always a terrible way to start a sentence - almost as bad as "I'm not a racist, but" ), but if you only watch 15 minutes of matchups like TCU-Boise, Oregon-OK St, Houston-Air Force, Utah-Alabama, Texas-Ohio St while waiting for Sundays, then you're not really a college football fan. You're an NFL fan who watches the college games as a diversion or when you care about the institutions. Which there is nothing wrong with (I'm probably in the minority because I'd rather watch Bearcats-Panthers than Bengals-Steelers), but those of us who do love college football aren't interested in changing the system in the hopes that NFL-first fans start caring more. It's like the NHL trying to appeal to southern fans or fans who don't want violence instead of making the game better for the hardcore fans.First of all Tim Tebow hasn't even been one of the 10 best QB's in the country this year. Secondly you're complaining preseason unranked, unheralded Cincinnati "not playing a top school" (except, umm, next week at top 10 Pitt?) and backing their way into a championship game while complaining about Texas' schedule which contained preseason #2 Oklahoma and numerous other ranked teams. I'm not going to absolve the OOC games against cupcakes, but it's disingenous and inconsistent with your other arguments when Cincinnati-Rutgers in Week 1 and Cincinnati-Oregon State in week 3 were huge games that mattered and Texas had multiple preseason top 25 teams on the schedule.

I am a fan of college football and do watch a lot of it. I don't go out of my way to see particular games usually, but I do have it on on Saturdays and occasionally a weekday night. Just because I'm not excited to see the best team in the nation battle it out against Florida International or Alabama host a mediocre FCS school doesn't mean I don't like the sport. I like soccer but don't get the same thrill out of a friendly between two countries as I do with the World Cup.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You're second paragraph is even more absurd. As I've pointed out in past posts every year there haven't been 2 undefeated teams there's a debate on who gets in, and every year it goes to the team with the tougher schedule. Undefeated SEC teams have lost out when 1 more good OOC game would have gotten them in, 1-loss Big 12/SEC/PAC-10/Big 10 teams have lost out when 1 more good OOC game would have gotten them in. And you somehow still claim/think that an 8/16 team playoff will increase the incentive for the powerhouse top 5 programs to schedule dangerous OOC games instead of scheduling cupcakes and finishing the season with 1-2 conference losses. When LSU (2 losses in conference, hardest OOC game Washington) would get in over Oklahoma (same 2 losses in conference, but also losses to BYU and Miami OOC). Virginia Tech would probably be out now, but in if they beat a cupcake instead of losing to Alabama OOC. Same with Oregon and Boise St., or Stanford and Wake Forest, or Clemson and TCU, or Oklahoma St and Houston.What absurd hindsight.

And this year will change that. If Cincinnati wins out, they will finish the year with a tougher SOS than Texas and will not play in the NC game. Barring how some teams do, TCU will also likely have a better SOS than Texas. What will your excuse be then?

And remember that strength of schedule isn't an end all. If Alabama loses one game all year to the #1 team in the nation, they will probably end up with an SOS in the top 10. Don't they deserve a shot over an undefeated team that has an SOS at 40? If losses are all that matters in this picture, it reiterates my point that this isn't about winning a championship, it's about not losing it. The goal is to make sure your schedule doesn't have any potential losses on it (which is why Florida is playing Florida International and not a major BCS program this week).

And finally, SOS is largely based on how well your opponents do. So if Florida goes undefeated and it just so happens that the SEC teams weren't good this year, they get punished. You are not basing the NC game on how well Florida did, but on how well their opponents did against other teams.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I did not think they were the 2nd best team in the nation. And Florida did a good job exposing that.

That's all fine and good, but Ohio State was one of two unbeaten teams (the other being Boise St) and claiming they didn't deserve to be there is ludicrous. Who would you put in there over them? 1-loss Louisville (no wins over top 25) Michigan (lost to Ohio State that week) or Wisconsin (lost to Michigan)? 2-loss LSU (didn't even win its own division) or USC (best win: Notre Dame)?

Talking about the national championship as if it should match the two best teams regardless of resumes comes off dishonest from someone ranting against Texas being in line ahead of TCU and Cincinnati.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A 16-team playoff would give you 4 weeks of incredible football games between top ranked teams. The regular season would have much more value to teams who happened to lose a game early on. No longer is your championship hopes dashed by a Week 1 loss.

You would have 15 incredible, drama filled games packed into 4 weeks, similar to March Madness. And you would eliminate the majority of the drama from every game between undefeated (major conference) teams during the season, since they're still making it with 1 or probably even 2 losses.

I'm an FCS fan and alum of one the usual contenders in the SEC of 1AA (UMass/CAA) - and I barely bother paying attention during the regular season. While I do appreciate the merits of the playoff system, the built-in 2/3 loss cushion diminishes every regular season game to the point a loss barely bothers me. Our position in the conference and ay conference race is irrelevant to 99% of the fans as all focus is on whether we'd make the playoffs instead. Anything more than a 4 or possibly 8 team playoff would do the same in FBS. Even those small steps would take drama out of certain big regular season games (i.e. the SEC Championship game where the losing team would almost assuredly make it even with a 4-team playoff.)

And this year will change that. If Cincinnati wins out, they will finish the year with a tougher SOS than Texas and will not play in the NC game. Barring how some teams do, TCU will also likely have a better SOS than Texas. What will your excuse be then?

That the voters decided Texas was a better team despite playing a worse schedule? (Or that, as we've shown earlier, they don't have a worse schedule according to the computers, who still think Oklahoma and Nebraska are very good teams?) I mean, if Texas lost out because its conference was weaker than expected it sounds exactly like the scenario you're deploring 2 paragraphs later -

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

And remember that strength of schedule isn't an end all. If Alabama loses one game all year to the #1 team in the nation, they will probably end up with an SOS in the top 10. Don't they deserve a shot over an undefeated team that has an SOS at 40? If losses are all that matters in this picture, it reiterates my point that this isn't about winning a championship, it's about not losing it. The goal is to make sure your schedule doesn't have any potential losses on it (which is why Florida is playing Florida International and not a major BCS program this week).

And finally, SOS is largely based on how well your opponents do. So if Florida goes undefeated and it just so happens that the SEC teams weren't good this year, they get punished. You are not basing the NC game on how well Florida did, but on how well their opponents did against other teams.

You're also seemingly backing 1-loss Alabama or Florida over undefeated TCU/Boise, so I'm really not sure where you're going with this. It's a 12-game season with 120 teams - a round robin isn't an option. Either you want the (subjective) two best teams in, the two teams that put on the (subjectively) best performances, or the two that have the toughest schedules (and even that can be a subjective debate - is one game against a top 5 team tougher than 3 against teams 25-30?). Pick a standard and stick with it instead of asking rhetorical questions and shifting the goalposts so it matches your hypothesis that BCS=Evil and always screwing everybody, which has become a pretty transparently dishonest and inconsistent argument.

You are creating narratives for each game. I could do that with any NFL game. Talk about some coach on the hot seat, a rookie starting his first game, etc. When I say games that matter, I'm talking about matter in the scheme of the championship.

In the end, this is the difference. The worst NFL team in history would beat the best college team by 50 points. Talent isn't comparable, practice time isn't comparable, so why watch an inferior product? The narrative. It's why we watch college football, it's why we care, even when professional leagues are out there that are better in every measurable aspect. There are 15 other college sports in the fall alone, and 3 other levels of NCAA football with clearly defined champions, as well as multiple professional football leagues if your main goal is to see football played to a clear, undisputable champion. College football games have a passion and atmosphere unmatched by any other sport in the US, and that's directly tied into the current system and the potentially devastating consequences of one loss.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That's all fine and good, but Ohio State was one of two unbeaten teams (the other being Boise St) and claiming they didn't deserve to be there is ludicrous. Who would you put in there over them? 1-loss Louisville (no wins over top 25) Michigan (lost to Ohio State that week) or Wisconsin (lost to Michigan)? 2-loss LSU (didn't even win its own division) or USC (best win: Notre Dame)?

Talking about the national championship as if it should match the two best teams regardless of resumes comes off dishonest from someone ranting against Texas being in line ahead of TCU and Cincinnati.

I'm not saying Ohio State didn't deserve to go based on their resume. I'm saying that the system is setup so that you don't usually get the best teams in the country in the NC game. The Big 10 was heavily overated that year but no one knew it thanks to the way things are setup.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You would have 15 incredible, drama filled games packed into 4 weeks, similar to March Madness. And you would eliminate the majority of the drama from every game between undefeated (major conference) teams during the season, since they're still making it with 1 or probably even 2 losses.

I'm an FCS fan and alum of one the usual contenders in the SEC of 1AA (UMass/CAA) - and I barely bother paying attention during the regular season. While I do appreciate the merits of the playoff system, the built-in 2/3 loss cushion diminishes every regular season game to the point a loss barely bothers me. Our position in the conference and ay conference race is irrelevant to 99% of the fans as all focus is on whether we'd make the playoffs instead. Anything more than a 4 or possibly 8 team playoff would do the same in FBS. Even those small steps would take drama out of certain big regular season games (i.e. the SEC Championship game where the losing team would almost assuredly make it even with a 4-team playoff.)

You have maybe 3-4 teams that have a shot at being in the BCS Championship game right now. That's 4 out of over 50 games that mean something when it comes to the NC. Typically those teams are playing vastly inferior squads (just look at the stellar matchups for the #1 and #2 team this week) and are not the most exciting games.

So what excitement do we miss this weekend with a playoff? I would think it would add a ton of drama to the rest of the top 25 teams playing. In fact, if entry into the playoffs was based on automatic bids won by your conference championship, it would add even more to that. I think that beats teams playing for a better position in the consolation games.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That the voters decided Texas was a better team despite playing a worse schedule? (Or that, as we've shown earlier, they don't have a worse schedule according to the computers, who still think Oklahoma and Nebraska are very good teams?) I mean, if Texas lost out because its conference was weaker than expected it sounds exactly like the scenario you're deploring 2 paragraphs later -

The keyword here is voters. You prefer a system that has the likes of Jay Mariotti choosing your champion, I prefer it to be settled on the field.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You're also seemingly backing 1-loss Alabama or Florida over undefeated TCU/Boise, so I'm really not sure where you're going with this. It's a 12-game season with 120 teams - a round robin isn't an option. Either you want the (subjective) two best teams in, the two teams that put on the (subjectively) best performances, or the two that have the toughest schedules (and even that can be a subjective debate - is one game against a top 5 team tougher than 3 against teams 25-30?). Pick a standard and stick with it instead of asking rhetorical questions and shifting the goalposts so it matches your hypothesis that BCS=Evil and always screwing everybody, which has become a pretty transparently dishonest and inconsistent argument.

TCU/Boise are not eligible for the championship no matter what fairy tale stories you tell. Non-BCS schools have gone undefeated over and over and never come close to a title game.

The BCS is all subjective. I'm sure some voters base it on SOS, some on performance, some on who they want to see (just like in 2006). You're getting upset at me for not picking a standard when the actual voters don't have one in place.

If I had a vote, I would put a 1-loss Alabama team over Texas (not sure about TCU). Alabama played in a much tougher conference and actually had the balls to play a decent OOC game (while Texas took the pussy route). I think the system is stupid to put the Championship in the hands of people who have to guess as to who is the better team. But that's what you want, writers over games.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

In the end, this is the difference. The worst NFL team in history would beat the best college team by 50 points. Talent isn't comparable, practice time isn't comparable, so why watch an inferior product? The narrative. It's why we watch college football, it's why we care, even when professional leagues are out there that are better in every measurable aspect. There are 15 other college sports in the fall alone, and 3 other levels of NCAA football with clearly defined champions, as well as multiple professional football leagues if your main goal is to see football played to a clear, undisputable champion. College football games have a passion and atmosphere unmatched by any other sport in the US, and that's directly tied into the current system and the potentially devastating consequences of one loss.

If you want to compare the passion from the NFL and college football, lets do it. Since you say that the current system is driving so much attention to the sport.

The NFL slaughters college football in virtually every single TV rating statistic. The average NFL playoff game rating was higher than the rating of any bowl game from last year. In fact, the average regular season football game beat just about every single bowl game too. The Super Bowl gets 4 times the number of viewers the BCS Championship game gets.

If by "passion unmatched by any other sport in the US" you mean not watched nearly as much as NFL games, you got it right.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you want to compare the passion from the NFL and college football, lets do it. Since you say that the current system is driving so much attention to the sport.

The NFL slaughters college football in virtually every single TV rating statistic. The average NFL playoff game rating was higher than the rating of any bowl game from last year. In fact, the average regular season football game beat just about every single bowl game too. The Super Bowl gets 4 times the number of viewers the BCS Championship game gets.

If by "passion unmatched by any other sport in the US" you mean not watched nearly as much as NFL games, you got it right.

Terrible, terrible, terrible way of comparing the two. The NFL has 32 teams and a maximum number of 16 games per week. NCAA D-1 has what? 119 schools. The number of people watching NCAA football each week beats the NFL hands down. It's not even close.

However, that's not what he's he getting at. Have you been to college football game where the team has a big following? You see passion and a gameday experience that just isn't matched by the NFL. I've been to Steelers games. I've been to WVU games. WVU games are something else entirely. A great college game is something I'd strongly encourage every football fan to experience.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Terrible, terrible, terrible way of comparing the two. The NFL has 32 teams and a maximum number of 16 games per week. NCAA D-1 has what? 119 schools. The number of people watching NCAA football each week beats the NFL hands down. It's not even close.

However, that's not what he's he getting at. Have you been to college football game where the team has a big following? You see passion and a gameday experience that just isn't matched by the NFL. I've been to Steelers games. I've been to WVU games. WVU games are something else entirely. A great college game is something I'd strongly encourage every football fan to experience.

Then compare the postseason. The NFL playoffs destroy college football bowl games in TV ratings and overall interest. The Super Bowl makes a mockery of the BCS Championship. The argument that has been used is that college is better because every game means so much more. I'm pointing out that a "meaningless" NFL regular season game can beat out just about every single bowl game that are oh so important.

I've been to the Swamp. I've been to Camp Randall. It is a great experience and there is a lot of passion involved. I also don't think any of that would go away if the championship was decided on the field. In fact, it would probably give a couple more home games to some passionate fans to witness a do or die game (vs a consolation game on a neutral site). People are passionate because they love their schools and the game of football. I don't see empty stadiums in protest that Michael Wilbon doesn't get to decide their championship.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not saying Ohio State didn't deserve to go based on their resume. I'm saying that the system is setup so that you don't usually get the best teams in the country in the NC game. The Big 10 was heavily overrated that year but no one knew it thanks to the way things are setup.

Ohio St lost to UF and Michigan ran into USC (who almost everyone agreed was the best team in the country, but they'd just choked away their chance with a 2nd loss). Other than that the B10 went 2-0 vs. the SEC and had 2 .500 teams lose by 2 to Texas and 3 to Texas Tech. Conferences or teams will always be untested because there are 120 teams and 12 games. If you narrow it down to BCS schools alone its 65 schools and 129 OOC games. It's impossible for any team (other than ND/Army/Navy) to schedule a game against every other BCS conference, let alone ensure those teams are good in a particular season.

You have maybe 3-4 teams that have a shot at being in the BCS Championship game right now. That's 4 out of over 50 games that mean something when it comes to the NC. Typically those teams are playing vastly inferior squads (just look at the stellar matchups for the #1 and #2 team this week) and are not the most exciting games.

So what excitement do we miss this weekend with a playoff? I would think it would add a ton of drama to the rest of the top 25 teams playing. In fact, if entry into the playoffs was based on automatic bids won by your conference championship, it would add even more to that. I think that beats teams playing for a better position in the consolation games.

This weekend was weak at the top no question, but it's not indicative any more than this one, where Texas, Alabama and Florida all play heated in-state rivals. And the excitement argument is less about weeks 12 and 13, where a playoff would have more teams involved, and more about weeks 1-10, where more games matter. Giving every team a mulligan would eliminate much of the interest then.

TCU/Boise are not eligible for the championship no matter what fairy tale stories you tell. Non-BCS schools have gone undefeated over and over and never come close to a title game.

1984 NCAA Division I-A football season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Or do you want to restrict it to the BCS era, when really it's been 1 team (2008 Utah) that can even begin to have an argument.

The BCS is all subjective. I'm sure some voters base it on SOS, some on performance, some on who they want to see (just like in 2006). You're getting upset at me for not picking a standard when the actual voters don't have one in place.

"The voters" as a whole don't, but I'm sure each individual one does.

If I had a vote, I would put a 1-loss Alabama team over Texas (not sure about TCU). Alabama played in a much tougher conference and actually had the balls to play a decent OOC game (while Texas took the pussy route).

So if you're about putting in 1-loss Alabama over undefeated Texas (who have actually looked impressive) then why the complaints about undefeated Boise not having a chance when they have multiple close games vs. weak teams on their schedule?

If you want to compare the passion from the NFL and college football, lets do it. Since you say that the current system is driving so much attention to the sport.

The NFL slaughters college football in virtually every single TV rating statistic. The average NFL playoff game rating was higher than the rating of any bowl game from last year. In fact, the average regular season football game beat just about every single bowl game too. The Super Bowl gets 4 times the number of viewers the BCS Championship game gets.

If by "passion unmatched by any other sport in the US" you mean not watched nearly as much as NFL games, you got it right.

If you're actually using TV ratings as a proxy for passion and atmosphere I don't know what to say. The Super Bowl is easily the highest-rated TV program - and at least 50% of people have no idea what's going on. It's a social gathering. Regular-season NFL games are similar on a smaller scale. My mom and dad watch the Patriots, my grandmother watches them, and most of the girls I know watch them - and if I'm interested in the game it's terrible to be in the same room. (I break down game tape and design plays in football and lacrosse. I don't really want to have to explain that, no, that black guy with dreads who just intercepted the ball isn't Randy Moss - even the people who say Wes Welker is more important to the Pats than Moss when Moss is the one getting doubled every single play and opening up the rest of the field for Welker annoy me.) It's as bad as the spectators (I refuse to call them fanatics) at UMass basketball and hockey games that yell at people to sit down during the game.

The defining college football play, and what seperates it from the NFL in my mind, is the Bily Cannon punt return against Ole Miss where the fans were going so crazy it registered as an earthquake. I don't want to sound exactly like JiMGA, but this is one place I agree completely with scorched-earth approach - if (the general) you is not already a diehard college football fan, I really have no interest in pleasing you or intent on changing the system so more people might watch - they're not people I want to watch with anyways. I want my fellow fans to be small in number and exceedingly passionate rather than having broad but shallow societal interest.