The BCS is dead as new playoffs are announced...

[BowtieBelle]

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoot...62612?gt=39002

What do you guys think? I don't know how I feel about this yet...

[rjdapilmoto]

I think it's about time that College Footbal implements a Playoff system, just like all of the other sports. A 4-Team Playoff is a good start. It'll still have some controversy, but at least not like what occurs with the BCS. Eventually, they will need to expand the playoff system to give other schools a chance at a National Championship. My two pennies...

[BowtieBelle]

Originally Posted by rjdapilmoto

I think it's about time that College Footbal implements a Playoff system, just like all of the other sports. A 4-Team Playoff is a good start. It'll still have some controversy, but at least not like what occurs with the BCS. Eventually, they will need to expand the playoff system to give other schools a chance at a National Championship. My two pennies...

Yeah, my only thing is that a four-team playoff seems a bit limiting.

[its a syn]

Best thing to happen, gets the underdog factor back in . IMHO the BCS never got the match ups right most of the time. Less corruption likely also.

[Steve Dallas]

I've actually lost a lot of interest in college football since the BCS was introduced. This playoff system only makes it worse. I liked the mystery of picking national champions, and that there was always controversy with it. To me, college football was more about the rivalries and having fun.

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to college sports. As soon as they ruined the Rose Bowl by allowing other teams that were not Pac-10 or Big-10 to participate? Ruined.

Pac-12? Ruined.

There are so many other changes, but having lived on the west coast my whole life...those are the two that matter most to me.

College sports shouldn't be about the money, but it is. Unfortunately, for some people.....money is more important than tradition...and that is sad to me.

[joe h]

Good start, it will be a cold day in hell before I recognize Alabama as the NC. But it would be nice to see at least 2 more teams or limit the playoff to only conference champions.

[Dr Jkel]

Of this thread should be good....I see the Anti-Alabama sentiment has started but we are use to it.

The playoff system will only keep the debate going...not everyone is going to be happy no matter what system you have. I do think it will favor the stronger conferences though........Boise St would now have to beat 2 top ranked teams in a row.

All this under dog talk is cool but in reality it still won't really help them smaller schools and this is why.

Boise St is the poster child for a playoff because of a couple of games spread out over a few years.....OU comes to mind, Georgia etc.....look at Hawaii a few years back when they played their BCS game against Georgia and got STOMPED. They simply do not play a higher level of competition.

I fully believe Alabama would have won the National Championship last year regardless of whatever system we had....they were CLEARLY in the TOP 4,6,8,10 or even 16 that is undisputed.

In general the SEC teams have faired better in the title games against ALL other conferences. But as they say on any given Saturday....La.Monroe 2007, App St, etc....but what you see is after these teams have their fairy tale win they usually get smashed teh next week.

Bigger conferences have more depth to be able to handle injuries.

The honest reality of the whole college football saga is MONEY. College football funds more programs, more athletic teams, build more facilities and generates more revenue than any other sport. PERIOD. It helps fund the swim team, polo team, golf team and most of the other teams universities have.

Lets look at Alabama this year......Alabama has 4 teams that won a National Championship this year...Football, Women's golf, Women's Softball, and Gymnastics. Which one do you think made the most money?

It's easy...football cause there isn't 101,000 folks paying to see the women's golf team.

Around here they are calling this the Auburn ruling because of 2004 when Auburn was 13-0 and didn't get to play. This past years was sort of weird because you had so many one loss teams...trying to pick the BEST one loss team will always be subjective no matter who they pick.

You look at past history...pre-season polls dictate alot about college football and if a team wins they hardly ever drop.

Polls should come out after 1/2 the season is over then you can truly tell how a team is doing.
Alabama is ranked #3 pre-season...big whoop. But the reality is if they win and beat LSU on Nov 3...they are pretty much a lock, Same thing with USC, LSU and the #4 team...I think Oregon.

If college football truly wants to define a National Champion by a playoff system then they need to scrap teh bowl games liek Div II does and have a playoff....BUT when you do the revenue WILL drop and other programs WILL suffer...That is the reality of all of it....JMHO

[PfadtRacing]

Originally Posted by Dr Jkel

The playoff system will only keep the debate going...not everyone is going to be happy no matter what system you have. I do think it will favor the stronger conferences though........Boise St would now have to beat 2 top ranked teams in a row.

All this under dog talk is cool but in reality it still won't really help them smaller schools and this is why.

Boise St is the poster child for a playoff because of a couple of games spread out over a few years.....OU comes to mind, Georgia etc.....look at Hawaii a few years back when they played their BCS game against Georgia and got STOMPED. They simply do not play a higher level of competition.

Disclaimer - This is just one dudes opinion, not necessarily representative of everyone at Pfadt.

I totally agree with you about this being completely about money. From top to bottom everyone wins with a "playoff" system. At least this gives an opportunity for a non BCS school to play for the national championship, even if it takes 2 games to get it done.

Where the argument falls apart is that Non BCS schools never show up to play in their BCS bowl games. Lets take a look at the actual record of Non BCS schools in those games:

04 - Utah rolls a CLEARLY over powered Pittsburg team in a complete joke of a matchup at the Fiesta.

06 - Boise St wins one of the best games of the year against OU

07 - Hawaii gets clobbered by Georgia. No arguments there!

08 - Utah beats Alabama 31-17. (my personal favorite!)

09 - Boise St beats fellow BCS buster TCU.

10 - TCU edges Wisconsin.

That makes Non BCS Schools 4-1 when playing in their BCS Bowl games. I'm not counting the Boise/TCU match up since they were both non BCS Schools in a BCS Game. Seems like a pretty good record to me! No arguments about the depth of talent being deeper in the BCS conferences, but the pattern really seems to be that when a dominant team comes from a non BCS conference they're more than capable of beating up on the big boys too.

As a Utah fan I suppose the point is moot now that we are rolled into the Pac 12, but I still hold out hope that this system makes things a little more equitable for schools like Boise and TCU who recently have had excellent teams on the field but never got a chance to prove their REAL worth. A 1 in 4 chance of being picked for a playoff certainly beats a 0 chance of making a playoff... and this means I get to watch a couple more College games at the end of the season, sweet!

[pay_day33]

Not a clear solution, but a step in the right direction.

As for the mid-majors/bcs busters/little sisters of the poor (stupid Ohio State) I don't know if it helps or hurts.

The 'bama fan is right. 2 games in a row is way different than 1 or 2 throughout a longer span of time.

If you give coaches like Meyer (Utah era), Peterson, and Patterson enought time, they can prepare a team to compete with just about anyone in the country. Two games in a row though? Could be different story.
Gonna be tough to end the season in that top 4 too. But the 6 additional BCS games (are they still calling it that?) will mean more teams in more meaningful games. Maybe we can quit rewarding 6-7 teams with bowl games now too.

That being said... Go Boise State!!! Hope to God we can come out strong against Michigan State this year.

[Dr Jkel]

Originally Posted by PfadtRacing

Disclaimer - This is just one dudes opinion, not necessarily representative of everyone at Pfadt.

I totally agree with you about this being completely about money. From top to bottom everyone wins with a "playoff" system. At least this gives an opportunity for a non BCS school to play for the national championship, even if it takes 2 games to get it done.

Where the argument falls apart is that Non BCS schools never show up to play in their BCS bowl games. Lets take a look at the actual record of Non BCS schools in those games:

04 - Utah rolls a CLEARLY over powered Pittsburg team in a complete joke of a matchup at the Fiesta.

06 - Boise St wins one of the best games of the year against OU

07 - Hawaii gets clobbered by Georgia. No arguments there!

08 - Utah beats Alabama 31-17. (my personal favorite!)

09 - Boise St beats fellow BCS buster TCU.

10 - TCU edges Wisconsin.

That makes Non BCS Schools 4-1 when playing in their BCS Bowl games. I'm not counting the Boise/TCU match up since they were both non BCS Schools in a BCS Game. Seems like a pretty good record to me! No arguments about the depth of talent being deeper in the BCS conferences, but the pattern really seems to be that when a dominant team comes from a non BCS conference they're more than capable of beating up on the big boys too.

As a Utah fan I suppose the point is moot now that we are rolled into the Pac 12, but I still hold out hope that this system makes things a little more equitable for schools like Boise and TCU who recently have had excellent teams on the field but never got a chance to prove their REAL worth. A 1 in 4 chance of being picked for a playoff certainly beats a 0 chance of making a playoff... and this means I get to watch a couple more College games at the end of the season, sweet!

All valid points BUT it is one or two games out of 15..........Utah could not beat LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida etc.....on a consistent basis on a week in week out type of season...sure they may win one or two but not enough to be in the NC game......

Kinda like Boise St...sure they win a game here and there.....

The big problem with bowl games is it does not give you a true indication of a team.....MEANING OU got beat by Boise St..Agree but OU was not in the game, Just like when Utah beat Alabama....Alabama could have cared less about playing Utah so they didn't show up...it was Utah's Superbowl....you could see it walking around New Orleans but I do think it was Great for Alabama to get smoked by Utah....since then 2 National Championship 24-4 record and all there losses were against top 10 teams.

I think the playoff will be great for the SEC because it pretty much guarantees One if not more teams will be in it at the end and we all know how that has fared the last 8 years.

Alabama is rolling right now no arguements there. Can they be beat? Sure they can and probably will get beat 3 times this year alone. 5 short years ago Alabama was 7-5, then 12-2, then 14-0, 11-3 and 12-1.

The SEC schools have consitently beaten every confernce they have played in Bowl Games and Championship games...sure you may have a fluke year but when you pit the best of the SEC against the Best of other conferences they just don't stack up.

I love the little guy just as much as they next person but I go back to the Money aspect.

Example Boise St claims they will play anyone anywhere...YEAH right....they forget to publicize what they want to play...They want 75% of the gate on away games pPLUS a home and home...........75% Really? Home and Home...NOT....Boist St 's stadium holds what 35000 at most, Bryant Denny holds 101,000...Why in the world would Alabama go to Boise to play, or Tennessee, Michigan, OU, USC, Florida they aren't...No Money in it and its a no win game....no matter what they do they will be criticized.

What will be interesting is how they choose the top 4!

[pay_day33]

Originally Posted by Dr Jkel

Example Boise St claims they will play anyone anywhere...YEAH right....they forget to publicize what they want to play...They want 75% of the gate on away games pPLUS a home and home...........75% Really? Home and Home...NOT....Boist St 's stadium holds what 35000 at most, Bryant Denny holds 101,000...Why in the world would Alabama go to Boise to play, or Tennessee, Michigan, OU, USC, Florida they aren't...No Money in it and its a no win game....no matter what they do they will be criticized.

What will be interesting is how they choose the top 4!

Little more to the story there. Boise State is consistently referred to as "the little guy." And it's true. Smaller conference, smaller stadium, less money, less skilled athletes. No arguments. When Boise goes somewhere big to play though, they want the same payout the Appalachian States, Utah States, James Madisons, and other "little guy"/cupcakes get.

Now, why would Nebraska or any other big school pay Boise the same as they do the cupcakes scheduled at the beginning of the season, when they have even a remote chance of getting beat? It's lose lose.

I don't blame the bigger schools for not wanting to pay out with a chance of losing, but I don't blame Boise State either. In the BCS era, Boise State must win every game to even be looked at. Why would they play a big game, get paid less and take a significant chance to lose, when all they need to do is win 1 big game and then run the table.

I'm not a BSU fan that's ignorant to college football, and I don't always (or ever for that matter) think Boise should play for the NC. But, of course I want what's best for my team.

[jshaf]

Originally Posted by PfadtRacing

Utah rolls a CLEARLY over powered Pittsburg team in a complete joke of a matchup at the Fiesta.

Pitt is a joke

[Dr Jkel]

Originally Posted by pay_day33

Little more to the story there. Boise State is consistently referred to as "the little guy." And it's true. Smaller conference, smaller stadium, less money, less skilled athletes. No arguments. When Boise goes somewhere big to play though, they want the same payout the Appalachian States, Utah States, James Madisons, and other "little guy"/cupcakes get.

Now, why would Nebraska or any other big school pay Boise the same as they do the cupcakes scheduled at the beginning of the season, when they have even a remote chance of getting beat? It's lose lose.

I don't blame the bigger schools for not wanting to pay out with a chance of losing, but I don't blame Boise State either. In the BCS era, Boise State must win every game to even be looked at. Why would they play a big game, get paid less and take a significant chance to lose, when all they need to do is win 1 big game and then run the table.

I'm not a BSU fan that's ignorant to college football, and I don't always (or ever for that matter) think Boise should play for the NC. But, of course I want what's best for my team.

Boise St has had a good team for the past several years in THEIR conference...In all honesty I do not think they could hold up in the SEC or Big 12 or Pac 12 because the competition is alot more stronger week in and week out.

Kinda like Utah...they will quickly see how the Pac 12 is and I am interested to see how they fare.

I am fortunate now since Alabama has done so well in the past few years, great recruiting, great coaching...BUT this too will pass and it will be someone else turn to be on top. It all goes in a cycle......Saban will retire or leave some day, recruits will go elsewhere and the Tide will slowly come back down to normal. It has happened to every major powerhouse football school in history.

Luckily for the SEC it has won every BCS NCG it has played in...but that too will change. If any other school had played LSU last year they would have won cause LSU stunk up the joint.

I looked back at the OSU/ Iowa State game...what I was amazed at was how ISU ran the football. The last series they ran the same play 4 times in a row...run up the middle. There is no way OSU could have handled Alabama's running game. Just like when Texas HAD the No 1 Rush defense until they played Bama.....we had 2 back run for over a 100 yds.

The SEC just has a differfent philosophy/style/ or whatever you want to call it......Run the football and have a good defense and a QB who doesn't lose the game for you....Power running hardly has a slump....QB's have slumps.

Alabama has won 2 National Championsip with 1st year starting QB's......they had a dominant running game and Dominant defense.

[CamaroSkooter]

It may only be a 4-team playoff now, but because they've gone to this new system, I'm willing to bet that the playoff will be expanded to more than 4 teams in the future once they see how well this system works.