We still know nothing about how good these teams really are unless they play each other in a playoff.  Texas got screwed by how the schedule played out, USC has just as good of a resume as Florda (argueably better) and Penn State has the maybe the "best" loss out of the non-Big 12 schools.  This system is nothing short of ridiculous and unless we don't get an 8 or 16 team playff college football's "champion" will continue to need quotations surrounding it.

The opinion of an Alabama fan probably isn't what you want to back up your opinion of the BCS right now, but I have been backing the BCS for a few years now.  Sure, a playoff would be better.  But it has to be done right.  Anything with at-large bids puts us right back where we are now.

The BCS gives us a much better matchup for a championship game than we had before it was created.  The BCS has its flaws, but it could be and use to be much worse.

A few things...

1) How is Penn State's loss to Iowa a "better" loss than Florida's loss to Mississippi, USC losing to Oregon State? I'm not saying Florida's schedule was as hard as some past SEC schedules, but it was definitely tougher than Penn State, if you ask me.

2) With a playoff system, how do you decide which teams make it in? If it's an 8-team playoff, then either Texas Tech, Penn State or Boise State would have to be left out. If it's 16, then you have to somehow differentiate between teams like Georgia, Georgia Tech, BC, BYU, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, Missouri, Oregon, etc.

No matter what, someone is going to feel snubbed.

Eh, I think a playoff is simple.
6 Conferences winners
Top 2 Non-BCS teams
8 At-larges

I can handle having the 17th ranked team feeling screwed.  Quite frankly teams 13-16 are probably just going to be blown out anyway.  What bothers me is having anywhere from 3-5 teams with legitimate gripes against the system.  A playoff may not be perfect, but it'd be a huge improvement.  The BCS doesn't really solve anything, and quite frankly, probably won't solve anything again this year - unless Bama wins it all.

As for Florida.. they have yet to play a top ten team.  Penn State and USC lost on the road to 8-4 teams, Florida lost at home to an 8-4 team.  Florida just hasn't proven much of anything ths year.  I obviously can't deny that they are a top team, but they haven't proven themselves to be any better than the other top teams.  They are being given a free pass simply because they play in the SEC and that's supposed to mean something.  This year, it doesn't mean anything close to what it normally would.

This year that would give you:
Big 12: Oklahoma
SEC: Alabama
Pac 10: USC
Big 10: Penn State
ACC: BC/Va Tech
Big East: Cincinnati
Non-BCS: Utah, Boise State

At large:
Florida
Texas
Texas Tech
Ohio State
TCU
Ball State

And then 2 more, out of:
Oklahoma State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, BYU, Missouri, Oregon, MIchigan State

Who gets bumped out?

I agree that most likely, none of those teams would win a playoff anyway. But it's not inconceivable that Oklahoma State, Georgia or Missouri could get hot and make a run. but under this system, at least one of them probably wouldn't get a chance.

Well this year it'd be rather simple.  I think Oregon, Michigan State, and BYU are obviously the weakest of those teams.  Oklahoma State beat Mizzou, so Mizzou is out and Georgia Tech beat Georgia so Georgia is out.  Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech make it. 

Actually to make it simpler, you could keep the BCS system,  and just have conference champions get the automatic bid, guarantee two spots to the top non-BCS teams, and then the next 8 in the BCS standings who aren't already in. 

So... the BCS works for the lower ranks, but not at the top?

You make really no valid points in your article about the BCS. You quickly dismiss USC and Texas tech for their losses but there is a team out there named Florida who lost to a Ole Miss. A loss to Oregon State or Oklahoma is not as bad to a loss to Ole miss and yet Florida is STILL on top. As far as Utah and Boise goes its not like this is there first rodeo they have won consistently. And both teams have won their BCS match ups. Yes the WAC is definitely not the strongest Conference out there BUT Boise has utterly dominated the Conference and should not be punished by a weak conference unless they have trouble winning it year in and year out , which they don't. 

And I must agree on using the BCS as a 'Playoff Indicator' -- so to speak.  Using the top 8 and then taking the next group from the remaining standings.  Sounds fair to me.  It resembles a wild-card of different proportion. 

The BCS is far from perfect, or even being good, but I do think it can come up with a pretty good top 16.  Its just no good at differentiating the top teams from each other.

Pat, excellent writeup, though, I, like tpowell, have both gotten things to work out well (ok, excellently for once in a blue moon) and have liked the BCS for years.


Few thoughts:
- If you stand back and look at it, I really don't think you can go near saying the South is one of the best divisions in history this year.
What really seems to be going on is a real shortfall of top teams.  The big fault lies in the number of perennial powerhouses struggling (Tennessee, Michigan, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, etc).  With so few consistent teams, teams that in the past were good but not great are now getting an extra win or two and additionally getting better rankings than they would have in past years.  Is it parity or a string of strange luck?  Is it a phase or is the game changing?  I don't know.  But the last two years have seen the emergence of a lot of questionable teams that have generally failed to stand up to the highest level.  Are Oklahoma State and Texas Tech really all that good?  Could they play with the great champions of yesteryear???  I tend to think not.

- Real nice job by Saturday and thanks to showing it to us.  I love "I'm more interested -- and I think the computers are more interested -- in the number of quality wins over ranked teams and other major teams with solid (7-8 wins)".  That's what the key thing always should be.  Once you start talking about 6 win teams or 2 win teams... you should cream them all equally.
As for Oklahoma, the argument fits excellent.  I think Cincy is given no credit, while Nebraska too much there, but what are you going to do...

And let me reiterate...
To USC, who admittedly has a legitimate gripe: You shouldn't have lost to Oregon State.
To Texas Tech, who also could make a case: You shouldn't have lost so badly to Oklahoma.
To Utah and Boise State: Good job this year, but keep beefing up the non-conference schedule to make up for your mid-major status. It will be tough, and you'll have to go on the road, but that's just how it is.
To Penn State: You shouldn't have lost to Iowa.
I may not represent all Sooners fans... but I can tell you I was likewise prepared to be passed over... don't lose next time.  We would'a had no room to complain.


- A big part of my argument against a playoff is the polarization in the playoff scenarios I see everyone fighting hard for.  Half think only conference winners should be allowed... or at least major conferences should be guaranteed.  The other half think it should be the search for the best teams.  Does anyone really think Virginia Tech or Boston College deserve shots at the title at this point!?!  Georgia, Georgia Tech???  Michigan State??? They're in the top 16.  Texas getting leaved out would be nothing compared to the travesty of one of those teams pulling out 3 wins and suddenly being crowned the best team in teh nation.
And with smaller pool sizes, you get into the tough blur talked about above.  Who do you leave out, Penn State or Boise State or Texas Tech?  And that doesn't even mention Ball State... who indeed hasn't proven to be a top team but also hasn't proven not to be.  If you're going to have this big inclusive playoff, you've at least got to include all the undefeated teams, right?
It's going to be hard go one way when people are so polarized on what conferences should matter.  Plus a majority of the playoff ideas I've seen have involved restructuring not just the bowl system, but conference championships or even conferences themselves.  Don't go steamrolling the fun that is college football to go fit some idealistic vision of perfection when sports is all about the little peculiarities (if Texas had lost to Baylor instead of Texas Tech, Texas would be set for the Big 12 championship and possibly the National Title).

- I agree.  USC over Oregon State and Florida over Mississippi are pretty even at this point, though the nod may go to USC for losing on the road.  Iowa?  Sorry, no.
But it comes down to how the teams are playing and body of work, and that's where Florida takes the lead in my mind.  Texas vs Florida is a more interesting discussion.


I am particularly biased towards Oklahoma and Florida, yet I'll admit the Texas discussion is a toughy.  The reality is, though, that beyond the top 4 teams, it's quite apparent which teams have played better and won tougher games.  As a friend put it last night... the national championship game should really probably be the two teams that would be favored against all other teams at neutral sites.  And I am quite sure Oklahoma and Florida would be significantly favored against USC and Penn State.
The BCS isn't perfect.  And this year is one of the tightest, perhaps most ugly years... yet it's still worked quite brilliantly in my opinion.  The only year where it really left someone out in the cold was 05, and even then most people agreed the two best teams played and USC was by far the best team afterwards.






Again, to turn the argument upon itself, you think that a whole season isn't enough to decide who the better teams are, but two or three one-and-done playoff games are better?

Can I also point out how this shows another possible flaw with a playoff... going to and winning conference championships means nothing.  Whether the Big 12 has the right tiebreaker is the big question... and that can't be pinned on the BCS.  But the fact a conference title means so much... means something.
If there were a playoff... Oklahoma and Texas quite possibly might be rooting NOT to be in the Big 12 championship.  Why face another chance to lose when you don't need to!?!

The idea of a playoff ruining conference races is simply foolish to me.  As a Badger fan, I'm proud of the fact that they won both the regular season title and the tournament title despite the fact that they got upset by a 10 seed in March Madness (the playoffs.)  The fact that there is a playoff in no way cheapened their accomplishment.  Duke and North Carolina's rivalry is not cheapened by the NCAA tournament.  They still put it all on the line during their regular season games because they know most of the time those two games will go far in deciding the conference title.  The only thing that is cheapening the regular season in college football is the BCS.  The regular season ultimately meant nothing for Utah or Penn State because they weren't expected to be as good as Oklahoma or Florida, even though they had (arguably) just as good seasons.

You see Mike, I'm with you to a point.  I understand your argument (I might not agree, but I completely see your point), but I lose it when someone says the BCS cheapened or ruined college football.  The BCS made college football better, IMO.

I agree that a playoff would indeed be better.  But there is no way that anyone can say that college football is worse off now than it was before the BCS was put into play.  No way.

And we aren't going to be able to sniff a playoff for another 6 years, because the NCAA is under contract with the BCS until 2014.  I don't know why I thought that was pertinent to say, I just threw it out there.

Unfortunately (at least from my perspective) your last point is very pertinent.  Its not changing anytime soon.  Even more unfortunate is that "my" conference is a big reason why its not changing. 

To be fair to the BCS, I have pretty much no memory of college football before it.  That said, if we're not going to have a legit national champ (which I don't think the BCS provides), then I'd rather just see the traditional bowls.  The BCS has hurt the Rose Bowl (which is everything in the Midwest) and about the only time its given us an acceptable national champ is when it was blatantly obvious who the best team was before the title game.

Since 2000, by my memory, there have been up to 5 or 6 tainted titles that the BCS just flat out didn't help.  In 2000, Miami beat Florida State, had the same record, but Florida State made the title game over them.  2003 was the LSU/USC/Oklahoma mess. 2004 we finished with 3 teams who won BCS bowls that finished undefeated, which is pretty ridiculous. 2006 (this isn't really tainted, but the process was) Florida passes Michigan in the last week simply because voters didn't want to see a title re-match. Last year, only the Lord knows who actually was the best and it appears we have the same mess this year.  To me, the traditional bowl system couldn't have done any worse than the BCS in these years. 

Sorry, but this will never be resolved. Some examples. Oklahoma plays a sh*tty game against Missouri, barely winning. Texas might then wind up higher in the BCS than Oklahoma. Florida and Alabama stink up the SEC championship game, Florida winning. Could the BCS choose OU and Texas? And what if there was another poll after the "championship" game, using all the bowl results, naming a different champion. Sadly (happily?), there are just too many good teams this year for an opinion poll--or expert poll or computer poll--to decide who is best. In NCAA basketball, the "best" team doesn't always win the championship, but the winner is indeed the champion. Maybe we should just do away with the whole concept of an NCAA football "champion" until we have a real tournament. The BCS is just what the initials stand for: Big Crock of S**t.

Just a little heads up here, you mixed up the Big East and ACC.

Fixed

beef up the mid-major conferanc is a joke. look at the big east and the acc.? this system isn't built 4 winners

The BCS still blows but I think they got this one right. Even though Oklahoma got beat by Texas they definitely deserve to be ranked ahead of them after their stomp of Tech. I think Bosie State and Utah should have a chance to play in a prestigious game though. Especially Bosie State for running the table two years in a row

2 out of 3 years for Boise State, not 2 in a row, but that's still a great point.

And yes, I agree. While all the Texas fans want to look at the head to head matchup, they conveniently ignore the fact that you could use the same logic to put Texas Tech ahead of Texas. But if you look at their entire bodies of work, Oklahoma has a pretty decisive edge over the other two teams atop the Big 12 South. And if they beat Missouri, it will only confirm that. If they don't, then Texas gets the shot that they will deserve anyway, so it's really no big deal.

This is a great conversation.  I think the "powers that be" in the Big 12 can help us out a bit by moving Texas or Oklahoma to the Big 12 North.  That avoids the log-jam at the top,allows us to see Texas versus Oklahoma a second time for the conference title, and forces teams like Missouri and Kansas to take the next step (like playing defense) if they want to be in the Big 12 championship game.  No offense though, the Kansas/Missouri game was fun to watch on Saturday.

With Bowl season being as long as it is there could easily be a 20 to 32 team tournament.  The Oregon state High School 3A Championship tournament lets in 32 teams and that's in a state where most people that haven't been there think that we still ride horses to work.  There's no reason that the big, bad NCAA can't do the same.

And whats with all the talk about Oregon not belonging??  Two of their 3 losses came to Top-10 ranked BCS teams (USC and Boise State) and the 3rd loss came to a then Top-20 ranked Cal.  And you can see by the fact that they lost to Boise State that they don't schedule all cupcakes schools like the SEC and Big XII.  They have just as much right to play in a 16 team tournament as Oklahoma State and/or Missouri!!

More teams in the Tourny!!!

@Kant, it's all about what is considered legit.  And that itself is a very subjective thing as this discussion is proving...

I do agree that the Rose Bowl has lost 5 levels of interest since the BCS.

But I am very opposed to your idea that the BCS has only been good when the best team was obvious beforehand...
The best two seasons in recent memory are 2002 (undefeated Ohio State and undefeated Miami in a classic) and 2006 (undefeated Texas and undefeated USC in 2006 in the Vince Young miracle).  The best team was in no way clear.
And as a Sooner, 2000 also sits well with me.  No one believed Oklahoma was the worthy champ, despite being the only undefeated team.  21 point underdog.  And a very rewarding smackdown of FSU.

And all three of those superb caliber championship games would have been blurred out in other games.  See, in 02 and 06, there was no question that there were 2 and only 2 deserving teams.
Why subject teams to have to run through a whole nother set of teams when they have already separated themselves?  That is something, in college football, that I find just as disgusting as when a blurry picture doesn't quite clear up before the title game.

And I know everyone's darkest BCS memory (mine included) is 2004 when three major teams ended up undefeated and in a mess.  And Auburn lost out on having a shot at the national title game despite finishing undefeated.
And yet, that year's national championship game, as far as I'm concerned, cleared things up just as much as any other.  Auburn eeked out a win over #8 VTech.  USC decimated Oklahoma.  In all honesty, the most powerful team in football was clear.  You may disagree.  But I thought that cleared things up a ton.

And, after all, that's why the option of a split exists anyways.
If people really thought Auburn was deserving, they'd have won the AP.  They had the benefit of a lot of support since they were getting "screwed", yet they still couldn't even come close.  Why?  Because USC was the clear best team.
Hey, if you want a +1 in such a situation, to eliminate split possibilities, I'm fine with that (though I enjoy the split).  I think anyone would be fine with that.
But in a year like 2002 or 2006, the only point of extra football would be extra football.  And that's not a good thing.
So my direction continues to be something of dynamic scope, if any change is made.  Not like I see it happening... is the idea really that complicated!?!



@CalBoomer: See that's the point, you have to show you're the best team, not just by winning, but by being more standout than other teams.  How the game is played matters.  This is the only sport where this is the case.  We're not talking about running up the score or only favoring spread offenses, we're talking about which teams are more in control.  And there are NOT too many good teams this year.  This is one of the thinnest years in decades.



@HeyHey, I agree.  I personally am sad because I think the tide is overtopping the walls toward a playoff at this point, but at least most of the discussion is decent and thought out
Tell you what, though, we have short memories.  Last year the north was the division of merit.  And while old powerhouses like Nebraska and KState and Colorado are struggling... there will come a day where Texas or Oklahoma recess again (though I faint to think about it).


Thanks for proving the point beerstudk.  Tough argument indeed [about why Oregon should be overlooked].  And one we don't need to be having.  Why not 32 teams?  Or 64?  What subjective level will be the barrier.  Yet there were only exactly TWO deserving teams in 02 and 06!

I really don't get the "If there is a clear winner why should they have to play more football arguement."  After 16 games last year, the Patriots were clearly the best team in football, going 16-0 in the regular season for the first time ever.  The Giants won the Super Bowl and earned the title of "Champion" and no one questions it.  Thats because they earned it on the field.  Thats all I want.  A team that earns it on the field.  For instance, no matter who wins the Big XII Championship game, Texas will have beaten them and have (at the very least) the same amount of conference losses as them.  That title wasn't earned on the field, but rather by computers.  Its ridiculous, and quite frankly, not fair.

Edit:  Also, even though its been said in an earlier post I think its worth repeating, this has been a productive and good discussion.  It seems like a lot of times when subjects like this are brought up on FanIQ we struggle to have a good cool headed discussion. Kudos to everyone involved.

well said

You want something decided on the field, you've gotta play a lot more games.  Heck, even baseball can't always sort it out over the course of a season.

If you want a one month championship, fine.  A lot of college football fans don't even follow the NFL anymore.  Honestly, the best team last year was New England.  The NFL isn't interested in finding the best team.  The mentality is that a game on the field settles things... so that's what keeps people quiet.  But this season and many others prove that there is much more to answering who the best team is than a one week matchup.

And Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Ohio State won as many conference games as their conference winners?  Your point?
And your argument is likely "well the only difference is Texas beat Oklahoma".
Well good for them, but they also lost to Texas Tech.  No one, not Texas, and not Oklahoma, has right to complain.  They should consider themselves lucky to be in the discussion at all.

NFL divisions/playoff seedings can go exactly the same way.  There can be three teams tied, and one team has to get the edge.  Don't go blaming the BCS for the Big 12's mess.

As I said, add a plus one if you want.  That takes care of Texas and honestly all the teams that deserve to be in the discussion.  Virginia Tech doesn't deserve to be involved in any title discussion, and if you do, you water down the game.