BCS is sheer BS

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:03 pm

Well, I know we still won´t get an NCAA Division 1 playoff system for football soon enough, if ever, but today is a SEVERE black eye for this BCS "computer-generated bullshit". Pardon my language, but USC is about to get royally screwed about 5:30 PM ET today when the BCS picks LSU vs. Oklahoma. OU is a very good team, but they were MANHANDLED in their tuneup for a National Championship game? Both LSU and USC lost early in the year and neither by more than 12 points and OU got obliterated by 28...in fact 35 UNANSWERED points.
 
 If today does not neuter those who support the BCS system, nothing will....this officially sucks.
 
 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1680412

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:14 pm

Tim:
 
 It´s exactly why I´m paying a hell of a lot more attention to the Division I-AA playoffs than the BCS bullshit this year.
 
 Colgate, a quasi-local team (about 40 miles from Syracuse), is 13-0 and advanced to the national semis yesterday with a win in a blizzard at home.
 
 Roll on, NCAA playoffs! Division I-A college football means nothing to mean until a playoff is implemented. I think it´s the only NCAA sport without a postseason playoff or championship.
 
 Take care,
 PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:59 pm

How long has the BCS been around? It hasn´t been around that long and there have already been two times I can think of when a team in the final didn´t even win the conference.
 
 The whole system is screwed up. It is better than in 1994 when Penn State got totally screwed out of a shot at the title (because they gave up a couple of garbage TDs in the last few minutes to Indiana and lost the #1 ranking in the polls), but it is still decided by computers rather than players.
 
 At least USC can be co-champs with a win vs. Michigan and the top spot in the AP polls.
 
 BTW, if they are going to keep the damn BCS they should at least require all conferences to hold a title game. Would it have been fair to exclude OU because they had to play an extra game against a very tough conference foe (and USC didn´t)? [ This message was edited by: Leebo33 on 07-12-2003 14:02 ]

Neckthai · Post by **Neckthai** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:55 pm

I´m definitely into the 1-AA playoffs. Wofford, about 50 miles from here in Spartanburg is the little engine that could.
 
 They run a truly old-school attack that averages less than 10 passes per game and have won 12 straight.
 
 Oh yeah, the school has a top-10 graduation rate among athletes and the second smallest enrollment among division 1 schools. In fact they have an average SAT higher than their total student population.
 
 They are everything that´s good about college sports.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:35 pm

F*ck the BCS.
 
 Go Blue......hens. Delaware is playing Colgate this week PK....are you ready for some football? <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">
 
 
 
 I still can´t believe Michigan will be playing in a National Championship game at The Rose Bowl. At least for USC,that is.
 
 Classic Big Ten vs Pac Ten matchup. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 8:51 pm

Jack:
 
 Oh, yeah, I´m ready for Delaware-Colgate. A way more compelling matchup than Oklahoma-LSU, seriously.
 
 At least the game means something, unlike the Sugar Bowl.
 
 Take care,
 PK

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:14 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-07 16:51, pk500 wrote:
 Jack:
 
 Oh, yeah, I´m ready for Delaware-Colgate. A way more compelling matchup than Oklahoma-LSU, seriously.
 
 At least the game means something, unlike the Sugar Bowl.
 
 Take care,
 PK
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif"> <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:36 pm

The D-IAA and D-II playoffs are precisely why the D-I teams are full of it.
 
 I guess the D-IAA student athletes can withstand the rigors of a playoff, but the academically fragile D-IA players can´t? I wish college football could at least be honest and say it´s about money.
 
 The thing is, I don´t necessarily disagree with Ok. remaining #1. A loss is a loss, so losing at the end of a season shouldn´t necessarily mean more than losing at the middle or beginning. You could make an argument that any of the top 3 deserve the spot. But for #2 to win 52-14 and then drop to #3 -- huh?

Post by **Jared** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:38 pm

Just to be a pain...
 
 Doesn´t there need to be some sort of system to break apart problems when there are three teams with one loss? If you went solely by polls, Oklahoma would be out. But that would be primarily because pollsters tend to drop the team that had the most recent loss. At least the BCS ranking takes into account strength of schedule and "quality wins".
 
 A playoff would be good, but it would take away from the "big-game" atmosphere of college football, where losing one game could end your season. They probably need a system where there´s an auxillary playoff level if and only if there are more than 2 teams with the same # of losses and similar schedule strength.
 
 Not that anything like that will happen....but since having a playoff seems unlikely, they need something like this to salvage these situations.
 
 (Although USC might be in a great situation. They´re #1 and now play (essentially) a home game for 1/2 of the national title. If they got in, they´d have to play LSU in Louisiana for the title. Sounds like a better situation to me.)

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 10:16 pm

PK:
 Sure a playoff system isn´t going to be implemented but there would still be controversy over that too. You can´t have a 16 team playoff which would require four more college games and not have controversy. It would center around #1 but that teams to get in.
 
 I think we just need to get rid of the conference championships sure they are great to watch but they just end up screwing things anyway. USC didn´t play against a tough opponent in the Pac 10 championship because there isn´t any Pac 10 championship.
 
 I don´t get this facination with having #1 play #2. How many times in sport does this happen yet college football forces this every year. The problem is what happen when #1, 2 and 3 are all at the same level you want to have a computer decided who´s number one and two.
 
 A tourney is not the answer. That´s trying to capture the March Madness spirit. How many teams are you going to have 16 with four games to win. Sure if the #1 team doesn´t win a playoff game there can be no blaming a "system" but then again instead of the controversy being for #1 it will be at #16.
 
 Here´s my proposal. Go back to the old bowl system. The one where you don´t see a Texas v Miami in the Rose Bowl. Each conference winner is selected by bowl commitees. So you might end up with three teams with the same record playing three seperate teams. Should there be a tie for #1 then you go to a one game playoff.
 
 As for OSU. tell me why a late season loss is more important than a early season loss. Sure OU get beat up by a top 25 team but a loss is a loss not if it´s the first of the season or the last. Let´s say OU somehow could have lost to K-State in the 1st game of the season and then win out they would have pulled the same record yet that loss doesn´t "really" count becuase it was early in the season.
 
 I don´t think a 16 team playoff is the answer but a one game playoff is.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:47 am

No, I think it´s time for college football to get out of the stone age and implement the playoffs. Watch a D-II or D-IAA playoff game and tell me that wouldn´t be amazing at the D-IA level. Those playoff games are tremedously exciting. I don´t think it would dampen the competitive spirit of the regular season at all. More teams would have reason to stay fired up even after they´ve had a loss or two.
 
 Right now, the system sucks because it´s a mathematical equation and it renders every other post-season game meaningless. The old system could be inconclusive as well. I´m sure that a playoff system could be featured that would be fair for all those involved. I wouldn´t even mind keeping the current BCS formula to determine seedings. Some teams would grumble about being left out, but that happens in the basketball tourney, too.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:42 am

>>>A playoff would be good, but it would take away from the "big-game" atmosphere of college football, where losing one game could end your season.<<<
 
 Jared:
 
 That´s bullshit, with all due respect. There are still "big games" during college basketball season, yet EVERY game in the NCAA Division I men´s basketball tournament is bigger than ANY Division I college bowl game, including the pseudo "national championship" game.
 
 Take care,
 PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:50 am

John:
 
 I simply can´t understand your logic one bit.
 
 We shouldn´t have playoffs because the No. 17 team is getting screwed? Well, that´s a HELL of a lot better than the No. 1 team in the country getting screwed, which is precisely what´s happening to USC.
 
 Sure, a team is going to be left out. It happens in March every year, too. But Boise State ended up No. 17 in the BCS and Florida ended up No. 17 in the coaches´ poll. Do you honestly think Boise State has a chance to win a 16-team playoff? No f*cking way. Florida, maybe, as a longshot.
 
 So instead you´d rather have sportswriters determine the national champion by reverting to the old system. It doesn´t matter what happens one bit on the field -- it only matters what some writer who hasn´t seen every one of the top 25 play this season thinks.
 
 That´s insane.
 
 It´s not like Division I-A plays more games or by different rules than the lower divisions. Yet I-A can´t have a playoff because the "integrity" of the bowls must be maintained? What is the integrity of the bowls? They´re all six shades of useless, anyways.
 
 The BCS still puts the decision of crowning a "national champion" in the RAM of a computer and the hands of sportswriters, while rendering every bowl game except for the "national title" game meaningless to everyone but the fans and alumni of the two schools playing in each bowl. And the Sugar Bowl doesn´t mean s*** this year, either, because the No. 1 team in the country at the end of the season isn´t getting a chance to stake its claim for the title.
 
 Add all of this up, and it just makes the Division I college "postseason" incredibly irrelevant other than filler for networks during the holidays and a vehicle for networks to use to sell a shitload of TV ads.
 
 You know what Division I-A bowl season basically boils down to, even for the Sugar Bowl teams? An early spring practice with a f*cking scrimmage at the end.
 
 That´s it.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 07-12-2003 22:52 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:02 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-07 22:42, pk500 wrote:
 >>>A playoff would be good, but it would take away from the "big-game" atmosphere of college football, where losing one game could end your season.<<<
 
 Jared:
 
 That´s bullshit, with all due respect. There are still "big games" during college basketball season, yet EVERY game in the NCAA Division I men´s basketball tournament is bigger than ANY Division I college bowl game, including the pseudo "national championship" game.
 
 Take care,
 PK
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I don´t know, if you have a #1 and #16 matchup in the NCAA Basketball tournament, I don´t think it´s going to attract that much attention other than from the fans of the schools involved.
 
 The NCAA tourney overall generates a lot of cash. But so does a single big bowl game. Don´t the schools get millions or even over $10 million for the big bowl games?
 
 I think there are economically compelling reasons they want to maintain the bowls. Not saying football playoff system wouldn´t generate cash but if it was clear that the playoffs would make the schools and the NCAA even more money than the bowls, I´m sure they´d really give it strong consideration.
 
 The thing I wonder is if you have a big enough playoff field, you might have to run it for 3 or 4 weeks, like you do in the NFL. But then, they could be competing with the NFL playoffs, which could be tough for TV ratings. Remember that they run the NFL playoffs on Saturdays the first two rounds.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:06 am

>>>The thing I wonder is if you have a big enough playoff field, you might have to run it for 3 or 4 weeks, like you do in the NFL. But then, they could be competing with the NFL playoffs, which could be tough for TV ratings. Remember that they run the NFL playoffs on Saturdays the first two rounds.<<<
 
 WCO:
 
 The Division I regular season ended Saturday. You would have Dec. 13, 20 and 27 for the first three rounds, with the national championship game the first weekend of January.
 
 That first weekend of January is the first round of the NFL playoffs, but those games are at 12:30 and 4 p.m.
 
 Hold the national championship game either on a Saturday or Sunday night of the first weekend of January.
 
 No conflict, and the season wouldn´t last any longer than it does now. It´s exactly what Divisions I-AA, II and III do.
 
 Plus most Division I teams play 12 regular-season games now. Teams only played 11 as recently as 10 years ago. Return to the 11-game regular season, and you could move up the schedule by a week and have a week off for Christmas or avoid the NFL playoffs conflict entirely.
 
 Out,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 07-12-2003 23:08 ]

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:18 am

Its a shame.
 The Computer Polls dont care what anyone thinks.
 They have OU #1 cause the computers dont care when you lose.
 All they care about is Ws, Ls, and str of schedule.
 Lucky for Oklahoma computers didnt actually watch last nights game.
 
 Its a joke .
 
 USC is #1 in both human polls and gets shut out of the Sugar bowl by the BCS.
 
 We need a playoff
 NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
 Do they need to study more in DIV1A than in the other football divisions????????????????or in the other college sports??
 College presidents are such lying sacks of crap.
 
 
 On the bright side.
 USC beats Michigan and they will at least get a share of the title.
 +
 Awreness of the playoff issues has reached an all time high.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:32 am

Academics have nothing to do with why there is no playoff. Division III has a playoff, and those schools are truly academic first type programs.
 
 It´s all about one thing, money.
 
 In the current BCS system the NCAA is not involved monetarily, or in decision making. If there were to be a 16 team playoff, then by NCAA bylaws they would have to take control of the playoff. If this were to happen then the NCAA would then get it´s hands on a big piece of the proverbial pie.
 
 The BCS conferences don´t want to share the wealth, it´s as simple as that.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:04 am

"It is better than in 1994 when Penn State got totally screwed out of a shot at the title (because they gave up a couple of garbage TDs in the last few minutes to Indiana and lost the #1 ranking in the polls), but it is still decided by computers rather than players."
 
 That is definately true. There should have been a shared championship in 1994. Same goes for 1993. I love FSU, but Notre Dame should have got a share of the championship after winning the ´game of the century.´
 
 I just don´t see the sense of the BCS decision this year. Is the Big 12 that strong? Nebraska is down, Texas A&M and Colorado are way down, Texas is the typical talented Mack Brown team with a young QB, Missouri and Ok State are improved but by no means powerhouses. Let´s face it, Oklahoma didn´t just lose, they got SMOKED by 28 points. They did not win their conference and here they are playing for the championship.
 
 All the ´tweaking´ has done nothing. FSU finished ahead of Miami after losing to Miami and the BCS was tweaked. But this year, if both teams had finished with one loss, you would have had the same scenario again. After Nebraska got in the championship without winning the Big 12, the system was again tweaked - yet here we have a similar scenario this season.
 
 It is all about the money. Finals will be over soon and games could be played. As it is we have a joke of a bowl season. FSU and Miami playing again? As an FSU fan I have no desire to play them again. And what about Miami? They already beat us handily once - so they have even less reason to play again. What a joke - a bowl meeting between 2 teams that have already played and will play again on Labor Day. It will be like an exhibition game - because it means nothing. Honestly, it would be great as an FSU fan to win, but we already lost the game that meant something.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:23 am

"What is the integrity of the bowls? They´re all six shades of useless, anyways."
 
 The bowls lost all integrity when they stopped calling them the Sugar Bowl, Gator bowl, etc.. and replaced it with Noika, Totstitos, etc..

fatheadX · Post by **fatheadX** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:00 pm

I don´t really follow college football, but why all this talk of a 16 team playoff? Why not 8 teams, or 4 teams, ranked by BCS standings? If this is simply ignorant on my part, let me have it! <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_cool.gif">

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:49 pm

With a 16 team playoff, you are certain to crown the best team as National Champion. With a 4 team playoff, #5 gets screwed. With an 8 team playoff several teams can claim a right to be in the mix. If you take #8, why not #9? With a 16 team playoff based on Conference Winners and 5 At Large teams, all bases are covered IMO. I posted this at OS last week and I think it makes a lot of sense....all except the fact that the BCS Conferences would never agree to it because what was already mentioned in this thread: They do NOT want to get the NCAA involved because they´d have to share the loot. God Bless America.
 
 Pasted from OS:
 
 In any system you devise there will be controversy, which is why I still heavily favor the 16-team tourney that I read in Sporting News two years ago. Take the 11 conference winners and 5 At-Large teams. The highest ranked teams get a cupcake first game (against the Sun Belt winner) while the teams in the middle slog it out. This makes the regular season stay very important while ensuring you have the best teams in the mix. It also allows the smaller schools a fighting chance to win the NC, whereas right now they´re virtually screwed.
 
 In such a format we´d be looking at this: (Seeds estimated afterSaturday´s insanity)
 
 1) Oklahoma - At Large
 16) North Texas - Sun Belt Winner
 
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_cool.gif"> Tennessee - At Large
 9) Miami (Fla.) - Big East
 
 5) Ohio State - At Large
 12) Kansas State - Big12
 
 4) Michigan - Big 10
 13) Boise State - WAC
 
 6) Texas - At Large
 11) Iowa - At Large
 
 3) USC - Pac10
 14) Utah - Mt West
 
 7) Florida State - ACC
 10) Miami (Ohio) - MAC
 
 2) LSU - SEC
 15) Southern Miss - CUSA
 
 What makes this work IMO is that you still keep the regular season a crucial part of the system, unlike NCAA Basketball. Here you punish Texas for losing twice by getting to play a damn good Iowa team while Oklahoma gets to play it´s 2nd teamers in the first round to play North Texas. OSU´s loss to Michigan forces them to play a VERY tough first round game against Kansas State. A win over Michigan and they´d get Utah or Southern Miss. Quite a difference.
 
 Getting the high seed here would be a huge advantage.
 
 I´d be glued to my TV if this happened. Still, for such a system to work you´d need to shorten the regular season. The Division 2 playoffs are going on right now, and you´d need to prevent teams from playing potentially 16 games. This could be done by removing one OOC game per team if needed. Does Ohio State really need to play Kent State or San Diego State? Does Michigan really need to play Central Michigan or Houston? Look at some of those first round games! Is Miami (OH) for real? We´ll find out when they play FSU. If OSU beats KSU they may get another shot at Michigan if they handle a very dangerous Boise State team. Miami gets another shot at Tennessee with the winner most likely running into Oklahoma. Iowa and Texas would be a fantasic game as well. And that´s just in the first round. If the money could be worked out...man i think this would be great for college football.
 
 And in case someone asks why a team like North Texas should get in while a team like Georgia doesn´t: In including those conference winners, there are a lot more pluses to this than negatives.
 
 1) It makes being the higher seed VERY IMPORTANT. This is what people who are against a tournament say, "We need to keep the regular season important!" Well, with this format, it is. If you simply take the top 16 seeds, there really isn´t a big advanatge in being the #1 seed. The #16 seed is going to be a very good team. This year´s #16 will be a team like Georgia or Washington State. That´s hardly a gimme and makes the regular season less important than it should be. There should be a big advantage in being ranked in the top 3.
 
 2) It gives teams from smaller conferences a chance at a title. In the current system, a team like TCU had no chance to get into a BCS game. Here, they at least have a chance to compete by winning their conference. And I don´t care if they are not ranked in some mythical top 25 poll. North Texas, Southern Miss, and Utah are a combined 27-8 on the regular season. They aren´t chumps.
 
 3) It´s a GREAT recruiting tool for smaller schools. When you are North Texas and you can tell a recruit, "You will get to play on a big stage if we win the Sun Belt." I don´t see that as anything but a positive thing. This would help to balance out college football, at least a little bit.
 
 Anyway. Any system would be better than the BCS because unless you have two undefeated teams or two teams with just 1 loss you may as well throw darts at a board.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:19 pm

Great post, Bill. That system would be amazing for football fans. The downside for schools is that it would drastically cut down the number of post-season games to 14, but I would think the payoff for teams from the smaller conferences would be greater than what they get now.
 
 Too bad it will probably never happen.

JeffBarnes · Post by **JeffBarnes** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:38 pm

(I´m glad I´ve found these boards; Sports Reviewers seems to have gone a bit clem for the time being)
 
 Oyez Oyez Oyez!
 
 Hear the Man of Barnes under The Anoiting! Before & prior, all that have business before the court shall make their explainations known and ye shall be heard (Okay, so I read it in one of my Readers Digest Condensed Books "The Judgement") but anyhow:
 
 Court is now in session.
 
 Jeff Barnes, "The Man of Barnes", has decided that henceforth from this day Anno Domini December 8, 2003 in the Year of Our Lord that this solution to the BCS be implemented right away for all men, all women, and for all boys!
 
 First of all let me say this right now.
 What bowls matter? What bowls matter? I say it under The Anoiting:
 
 ROSE BOWL, ORANGE BOWL, SUGAR BOWL, AND FIESTA BOWL. You could possibly make an argument for Cotton Bowl and maybe a couple of others, but these 4 bowls are the ones that matter. Amen? Amen.
 
 A 16 or 32 team bracket, allocated by either seeding by poll #s (AP, UPI, etc) or seeding by conference allocation. The first is rather self explainatory; using the polls from 1 to any even integer from 2 to infinity (64, 128, 256, etc) BUT in the plan, to be called:
 
 CONFERENCE ALLOCATION
 
 Using a 16 team tournament playoff tree we do as so:
 
 1ST IN ACC
 1ST IN SEC
 1ST IN BIG EAST
 1ST IN BIG 10
 1ST IN PAC 10
 1ST IN BIG 12
 1ST IN WAC
 1ST IN MOUNTAIN WEST or CONF USA or BIG WEST
 
 8 slots are allocated w/the top teams from the 8 major conferences. Start from this basis.
 
 Then other slots are allocated according to strength of schedule, RPI (BCS?), etc, etc, etc. just like college basketball.
 
 Now for the playoff tree:
 
 The 16 team playoff gets halved into Q Finals (8 teams)
 
 The 4 Most Prestigious Bowl Games are to be used in this section of bracket. The traditional Big 10/ Pac 10 Rose Bowl could be lost, but the other bowls don´t really have a traditon of conference allocation as such. But whether you do a random draw or whatever doesn´t really matter (for I say this under The Anoiting): ROSE, SUGAR, FIESTA, AND ORANGE Bowls are to be used for the QUARTERFINALS!
 
 Winners advance to NATIONAL PLAYOFF SEMI FINALS (4 teams) w/a final and true NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FINAL to decide a true champion on the field.
 
 Single elimination.
 
 Leave the less prestigious bowls for those 5 win (or more) teams that DON´T make the NATIONAL PLAYOFF where prestige and a POSSIBLE National Championship Game await.
 
 So it is written. So it shall be done.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:14 pm

It is time for Jeff Sagarin (tm) to reprogram the old computer. Anyone agree that Miami ........of OHIO is the fourth best team in the country?

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 1:00 am

You know what it is, it´s this attitude that we have to be fair.
 
 Well I hate the playoff system for college football. Let the bowls still be played. And go back to the system before the BCS. Rarely are three teams going to vie for number one. I don´t think I´ve seen one poll before the BCS towards the end of the season that had three or more #1´s.
 
 If there is any indecision then let the number 1 and number 2 ranked teams slug it out for one final game after all the bowls have been played.
 
 And as for the staleness or bowls. It´s because the number 1 plays the number 2. Sure a 16 team playoff system would correct this because of the playoff atmosphere. In the old system for example when #1 is playing #5, #2 is playing #4 and #3 is playing #10 you have created interest in three bowl games. The problem with the BCS no is that only one game has any real importantce that´s the nation championship game.
 
 I think abandoning the bowl system is abondaning college football. What if the NFL went to a bowl system because as we all know the real Super Bowls are played in the conference championships.
 
 The playoff system work well for lower divisions but the problem with the BCS and PK´s and Abner plans it´s the same damn type of attitude we have for kids teeball every thing has to be fair.
 
 The bowl is neccessary for the lower ranked football clubs to make money. In a playoff system they would be left out, in fact you would just be creating the NIT.
 
 College football is college football and making a push towards the NFL style of play.
 
 The old system would work and possibly generate more interest when potential number 1´s are playing in different bowls. And should there be a tie a one game playoff.
 
 The only way I would support a playoff is if they went to a draw system. It´s almost futile for the #1 ranked team to play a cupcake the first game. I would hate to see the SunBelt play the #1 team in the nation because you know already what´s going to happen. And so what if the #1 team has to play the #2 team in teh first playoff game. Isnt´ this about who´s the best team throughout the playoffs and not about creating the final game making the most amount of money and creating the most interest.
 
 It would be similar to the Europeans Football Draw system. Top flight teams always seem to make it to the final games of the tournament every year. The same should be for March Madness and if NCAA Football goes to a playoff system.