Any Way The Wind Blows: Playoffs

His first comment seems more an argument against even attempting to crown any champion - it's certainly applicable to the current BCS format as well.

I guess the argument is that he should hold his breath and stomp his feet against the inevitable, rather than give a gruding, luke-warm endorsement?

Looks to me Brandon is consistent in finding the proposals ridiculous. Also looks like he has not changed his mind about being against a playoff - in quote 2 he doesn't even address whether he wants a playoff, just that he doesn't think what's being proposed is a playoff.

But I realize Dave Brandon has spoken, so we must criticize what he's said.

With all of these debates, I sort of wish we just went back to the old bowl system. I mean, there were a few split titles, but not as much rage as we've had over the BCS

The first is saying that a playoff system is pointless because of the logistics of football.  You just can't have a large enough playoff field and the factors of outdoor play are too drastic to come up with a consensus most deserving champion.  There are still a ton of factors that will make people unhappy that their team didn't get a "fair" opportunity.  

The second is saying, he is fine with adding "playoff" games, he just doesn't think it is a true playoff.  And the "if that makes people happy" comment doesn't mean everyone will be happy with the results, it just means people are upset and they want that change so he is fine with making it.

In summary to both statements he doesn't care if they do a mini playoff, but he thinks people will still be complaining in the end.

"You've got a bunch of teams that don't play one another and play different competition and in different time zones in different conferences in different stadiums in front of different crowds"

Don't tell Brandon about March Madness.

I do agree that right now the system is set up in a way that there isn't parity and equality. 

He didn't factor in the differences in academics, the fact that its been 70+ degrees in SEC country for 2 months now, while still brisk and chilly up here in Big Ten country. He didn't talk about the recruiting advantage some schools get due to geography. 

I think conference champions would be the only way to get a somewhat fair system. and have the head to head conference winning percentage that is in place in the BCS to determine whcih conferences get into the tournament. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! the SEC is going to block that with everything they have. They like having LSU vs Alabama in the game.

and I think he's talking about two different things; a large format playoff system and a plus-one concept on the current system.  You'd paint him as an old curmudgeon if he had one single, unwavering opinion on the subject. 

Until they level the playing field with regards to academics, admissions standards, and recruiting class sizes, the call for a playoff is a moot point.  One September 1st, we'll see one college football team and one semi-pro football team compete against each other under the veil of amatuerism and tradition.

The second is not exactly a beaming statement of support for the new system.  He says he wouldn't call it a playoff, then asserts that it's, "a clever way to come up with one more football game."  If anything, with the last sentence in mind, the second quote sounds more annoyed than anything.

are a little contradictory (saying a 4-team playoff is bad, then saying a 4-team not-playoff that still functions like a playoff is okay), but I can at least see how Dave Brandon could have made an honest mistake in clarifying his own opinion in each case. Calling out MGoBlog for misrepresenting his position on the date of The Game, when he supplied the quote on considering moving The Game back, was much worse.

Makes it sound like he approves because it makes more money, not because it clearly decides a national champ.

We need 87/100ths of a team to make it work, just combine a few teams from the big east

I actually like what he said, as I have the same opinion. The biggest issue, though, is that teams are ranked before every game is played. Everybody agrees that the ranking system is something that changes week-to-week, so why not just wait until the last week to release it? I know this will never happen, because those that vote would still compile a private ranking system, and lord knows ESPN will have their "informal rankintology" every Monday. I've always been under the impression that when a team has an opinion on whether they should be in the National Championship game or not, the cause of such ire is on the voter's shoulders, not the BCS's. This issue won't end if a tournament is adopted, unless guaranteed spots are given to conference champions only (which still poses problems because conferences rarely play every other team in their conference)

I like the bowl system because kids have the opportunity to play a team they may never play again in a city they may have never visited nor may ever visit again. Creating a tournament only gives you a tournament champion (see college basketball).

Scenario 1: (1) Undefeated Team

                   (2) Undefeated Team

                   (3) 1-loss team

                   (4) 2-loss team

If (4) beats (1), (3) beats (2), and (4) beats (3), was (4) the best team in college football? Probably not, they were just the best team over a two-week period in a tournament. How would that be any less mythical o than those that use "MNC" somewhere in their online lexicon?

End Rant.

/it's like 85 degrees in Arizona; no real reason to complain, I guess.

His main argument is consistent, in that the selection process (AP + Coaches + BCS) is not changing, only more teams are being added, and that ultimately the math of MOAR TEAMS * NEBULOUS SELECTION PROCESS = GREAT SUCCESS! does not compute.

He is, clearly, more tactful in his second statement. What is the issue with tact?

Play it with 5 teams and allow the bands to come = 5.87.