The real reason playoffs would ruin college football

You say that upsets matter and point to USC and Oregon State, but obviously Florida losing to Mississippi at home didn't matter.

Bottom line is that having a playoff wouldn't cheapen the regular season like basketball's regular season because the standard to make the playoffs would be pretty high, even if it was as large as a 16 team playoff. Yes, losing one game wouldn't kill the season, but then again, you wouldn't have teams like USC, Texas, Penn State, Texas Tech and Alabama, all of which have some argument as to why they are as qualified as the teams that are there.

The answer is to find a way that would still allow for the cash-cow bowl system to co-exist. All bowl games but one are essentially meaningless exhibitions anyway so I don't see how this can't be achieved.

But I disagree. Tell the Texas players that debate is what makes the sport great. Or the Penn State players, or the USC players. Or the '04 Auburn players. I bet they all love the debate about whether they deserved a shot at the title.

IMO, one of the biggest reasons that we should move to a playoff is that coaches and players are quickly becoming unanimous about what they want to do--and they want to settle it on the field.

LJ nailed it..I love how the kids that put all the work on are never heard on the subject. As a competitor they want a chance to prove themselves..that is why they work out all year and go thru hell not to play Eastern Michigan they want to play aginst the best and see what happens, but these idiots who know nothing about football protect it. It's not the coaches or AD's protecting this stupid system it's presidents and commissioners many of which have never even played football or care.

The argument about the season is lame...for every 1 or 2 games that could possibly be rendered less meaningful..there would be many more games rendered more meaningful because teams would have a shot as opposed to someone like Ohio St. who was playing out the string the minute they lost to USC. As many have pointed out the prospect of traveling several weeks is unrealistic so with Brian's system of byes and home field advantage it would be hard to imagine too many scenarios where a regular season game's importance would be jeapordized.

To your point Callahan, the answer IS to find a way for the cash cows to co-exist with some type of playoff format. I think this is best achieved (i would argue not the best method is the BCS, but I am a realist and can accept some level of compromise with the U presidents and ADs to make this happen) by using the BCS bowls with conference tie-ins, this puts 8 teams in the mix, and then running the BCS numbers again after the bowls and having one more game (plus 1). There will still be controversy that MichIOE01 loves with CFB, but it will be a better alternative.

To your meaningless exhibition comment....tell that to the Wolverine teams when they played Florida last year in the Citrus Bowl, or Alabama in the Orange Bowl, or Texas in the Rose Bowl..... meaningless, I think not. I saw them all in person and there was a helluva lot of passion in those stadiums. The europhia and chest thumping of all Michigan players and fans when they won and the agony of what could have been when that football split between Shazor's arms on the Texas field goal. Some of the best games in Michigan history.

I agree with the post's part about every game counting. Everything is on the line every single week. If they had a playoff, the regular season wouldn't be quite as significant.

I also get the feeling, playoff or bcs, it's still going to be the greatest sport on earth.

I agree that complaining about being "shafted" or who is truly the best team may be fun for the fans, but the players and coaches from Auburn, UM, Georgia, etc. undoubtedly wished they could have settled the matter on the field. And if an NCAA playoff of 16 or 32 teams was possible, then maybe it would work in crowning at least a more legitimate champion. That said, I've yet to see a viable plan for making that happen, and so I am dubious about any of the other proposed solutions (an 8 team playoff, +1, etc.) really fixing the problem. I will say, though, that I could do without the 2+ months of bitching and politicking about who should play and who shouldn't.

"Controversy, debates, arguments, unanswered (and un-answerable) questions, upsets that truly affect the big picture. These are the things that make college football the greatest sport out there."

These are not the things that make college football the greatest sport. These are the things that make me hate diving, gymnastics, figure skating, and boxing when it goes to a decision. The things that you believe make college football great do nothing for me but raise my blood pressure.

The BCS provides us with the greatest injustice in sports on an annual basis and you are grateful for this. I don't get it.

to see that this argument is deeply flawed. The excitement of the buildup to games like Alabama at Texas and Penn State at USC, then USC at Florida and a rematch of the Texas/Oklahoma game are worth ten years of chaos, contreversy and the actual BCS games that they would hopefully replace.

The current system is absurd. The bowl situation is totally out of control. Why does the Meineke Car Care Bowl matter? Hell, even the Orange Bowl this year will only be followed closely by fans of two small colleges.

Keep the bowls, but build in a tight playoff system involving highly sensible home field advantage.

What You Said:

"It’s the “what ifs?” What if Michigan had played Nebraska in 97-98? What if it had been Auburn-USC in 04-05? What if it had been Auburn-Oklahoma in 04-05? What if Texas had been in the Big 12 championship game this year?"

What I Heard:

"I'd rather argue with other football nerds about hypothetical games than actually get to see these awesome teams play each other."

If we had a playoff, we could have actually seen Auburn-USC play. I don't really care about determining the "ultimate" champion or anything - I just want to see good football teams play. In our current system, we get 4 super meaningful non-conference games against shit opponents, a conference season featuring half shitty teams, and, if you are a lucky, a competitive match-up in the bowl game.

I want football games. Between good football teams. Not bar-stool debate.

I think a playoff would be great, but only if the 1st/2nd round games are home games for the higher seeds, I really don't like the idea of using the current bowls as part of the playoff and extending the season into mid-January.

When I was in school the bowl games were some of the greatest road trips and fun times I've ever had. There's no way I could have afforded to go to the Rose Bowl one week, another place the next week and finally a third game the week after that. Call it nostalgic/naive/stupid or whatever you will, but I prefer the bowl game atmosphere filled with fans/students of the competing teams as opposed to the Super Bowl atmosphere of mostly indifferent fans who just want to be able to say they were at the Super Bowl.

If you had to be a conference champ to earn the automatic bid to the playoff then the Oregon State USC game still would have mattered. Oregon State had a chance to win the PAC-10 this year; in that event USC would have to hope to beat out Texas to get in to the playoff*.

*Based on an 8 team playoff where 6 BCS conference champs get autobids (I have outlined this before). The other 2 spots go to an at large. This year would be Utah and Texas. However, in this system there would be debate about letting in Alabama or USC or Texas Tech over Texas, which might change the current rankings.