Tis the season for holiday shopping and college football playoff ideas. So before anyone starts another thread about how there system is the best for a playoff even though it is logistically impossible I wanted to set the record straight on 1 thing(just to keep things clear I would love a small playoff and Brian's long proposed system is pretty close to perfect because it is actaully feasible). When someone says the BCS sucks because we have all these undefeated teams and it is a failure they are missing the point. This is why the BCS was created. If USC and OSU were the only 2 undefeated teams and they were the unanimous #1 and #2 teams in the country and they were playing in the Rose Bowl people would say the BCS worked. No the old system would have worked the BCS did nothing, if the scenario above was the same except it was Nebraska and LSU people would say the BCS worked, but it really didn't the Bowl Coalition would have worked because it would have got the teams out of their bowl tie ins so they could have played. The BCS tries to seperate teams that have similar credentials by factoring in some schedule strength by using computers so you don't get BYU winning the NC by defeating a 6-5 Michigan team. The only time you need the BCS is if there is controversy, which is why everyone rails on it, but it would be worse under any of the previous systems which blew as well. While I hate not having a playoff, the BCS is not the problem it is the current sytem which is better than the previous.
Playoff Thread Primer
A little goes a long way.....
The to go is having a system that is adaptible to the situation that is happening that year. If there are two undefeated teams then they should play. This year there are going to five unbeaten teams, so I propose that #5 play #4 as a play in game, then have a playoff of #1 vs #4, #2 vs #3, and so on.
You do realize things like National Championships need further planning ahead that the last week of the season? Not being an ass, but really, this is not possible.
that prevented teams from playing it "on the field". However, at it's inception, there was not near the parity that exists today.
The BCS has made itself obsolete in that it's opened our mindset to the fact that a 1 loss team (based on Sched Strength), may in fact be better than an undefeated team; or that a lesser conference powerhouse may actually deserve a shot. Years ago most people would've said, "You're nuts!"
Once that Pandora's box opened, it's now impossible to tell anyone that they don't "deserve" a shot. The BCS cannot be "tweaked" in any possible way to "fix" this.
From here, a playoff is the only way to appease the masses. It may/may not happen, it depends how "squeeky" the wheel gets.
It's Nov. 30. I'm going home from DC for Christmas but also am planning on going to Stanford's bowl game. Problem is, the Pac-10 title has yet to be decided, so I won't know Stanford's bowl assignment until Friday or possibly Monday. I might have to change my Christmas week plans (nightmarish travel that weekend), or plan to go to the West Coast and back over the New Year's holiday (ditto). Ticket prices will be sky-high inside three weeks, worse inside two. And this is to get to a second-tier bowl game.
No one has talked about - or talked to NFL fans about - the logistical nightmare of 50,000+ fans trying to attend their team's playoff game on six days' notice. Even if they play some games at home sites, half the fanbases will be struggling
And there is the issue of "do we go to the first round game, or hope they win and plan to go to the next one?" The Super Bowl stands are full of disinterested parties, it would stink to see that happen to the BCS bowl games.
This is why, if there will be a playoff, I advocate at most a four-teamer inside the current BCS structure. Most fans will have none of the inconvenience, nor will they be raked over the coals to hit a 1-vs-16 game to see somebody get their a** kicked.