Mr. College Football

By Richard

September 18, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

Except Florida and Michigan lost their “playoff” games last year, but only one of them got a shot at the BCS title. Meanwhile, Boise State didn’t lose their “playoff” games and didn’t get any shot at a title.

By Roswell Ed

September 18, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Tony,

We don’t have a playoff.

By Dave-SD

September 18, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Please stop propogating the “regular season is a playoff” nonsense. If you like the bowls because they’ve got tradition and pageantry, or a myriad of other reasons, that’s fine. If you think it’s great that an excellent team can have one bad game in week two or three and be eliminated from the national championship picture, that’s fine. If you think there’s no problem with undefeated teams with absolutely no chance to play for a championship, that’s fine. But don’t call that a playoff.

A playoff is selecting a group of the best teams after the regular season is done and having them play a tournament to determine a champion.

By reebok

September 18, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

Don’t forget that Boston College will have to win the ACC Championship game as well, against either G-Tech or V-Tech.

By FluffAlbright

September 18, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Hmmmmm….it seems to me that a couple of teams have much tougher “playoff” games than the rest. Please Tony, don’t pretend like this system works. We should all hope for a plus one system at a minimum. The BCS must go!

By gman

September 18, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

I say we don’t have a playoff. So does everyone else.

By Adam E.

September 18, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Sure, that’s a playoff all right. Never mind that if more than 2 teams happen to pass all those tests on their schedule, one of them still won’t have the chance to get the title. That’s something that can’t happen in a playoff, but can, has, and will again under the current system.

By spike

September 18, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Finally, a college football column without mentioning Notre Dame!! Atta boy, Tony!!

By Got 12?

September 18, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Why isn’t Auburn listed as an elimination game for LSU or Florida? Roll Tide!!!

By Got 12?

September 18, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Why isn’t Auburn listed as an elimination game for LSU and Florida? Roll Tide!!!

By Gator Nation

September 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

I agree that the season is a form of playoffs and that makes each week exciting. You could keep this drama and include a 4 team playoff at the end of the year and college football would be just about perfect. Nice picks by TB, he went 8-2 on his fearless friday picks.

By Tom

September 18, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

looks like Florida and LSU got the s** end of the stick

By dawgbone

September 18, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

You are overlooking the fact that Fla. has to play Ga. They better not overlook it!

By Spike

September 18, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Holy Smokes, Tony. A column about college football without a word about Notre Dame!! I never thought I would live that long.

By Nick Saban

September 18, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

That game in T-town will be tougher than the experts think for LSU.

http://sabanator.blogspot.com

By TigerBait

September 18, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

USC does in fact have an easier path to the title game. Just like what Les said earlier this summer.

By David-ATL14

September 18, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

One glaring mistake in your Top 10-West Virginia.

Not a top 10 team, plays in a “mickey mouse” conference. Louisville’s being exposed last week as a pretnder doesn’t bode well at all for Rutgers or the Mountaineers. Their schedules are jokes, but alas some team will take them down.

BCS is a poor system but the first step to cleaning it up to only a slightly below acceptable level would be to rescind the Big East from playing on an automatic bid.

By Randyt

September 18, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

I used to think that it was crazy not to have a playoff, but more and more I am concerned that there would always be some teams getting screwed over. The biggest drawback I see to a playoff is that now every week is part of the playoff. If we had a playoff system, I think that many teams would not play as hard in the regular season.

I do have some heartburn about the fact that in the conferences who have a conference championship, the team that loses is screwed because its ranking always falls, even though it might have been stronger than the top team in a non-championship conference. The conferneces that do not have a championship might have a strong team and a weak team get in (for instance, a few years ago, Pudue was possibly looking at a walk through because they did not have to play the highest ranked teams in their own conference). All of the BCS conferences should require a conference championship…or none. (IMHO).

By Quaildawg

September 18, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

Obviously you do. Have you already forgotten your article from last week that laid out the fiasco for the BCS with so many unbeatens and we hadn’t even played the third game of the year yet?! What’s it going to be TB? You offer some great insights on a weekly basis but please drop the lame attempts to create controversy when I trust as you have pointed out above that things will have a way of working out.

By BullDawg Rick

September 18, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

‘Homa has the easiest path to the BsCS

W Va - S Fl & Rutgers? Are you kidding me?? Win those & you’re in the Big Dance?

UF & LSU have to win 3 games vs easc other 2 times?!? Brutal…

By shane

September 18, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

michigan is 1 and 2 and hasn’t played anyone yet.why are they mentioned?

By theBiscuit

September 18, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Heres why we don’t have a playoff even under your terms Tony. There about 60 teams in legit conferences to compete for a championship. There is not enough inter-conference play to determine team’s strengths. We were an inch last year from having Ohio State play Michigan for the national title and history would never have found out either of those two teams were frauds.

By 2N4YEARS

September 18, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Tony, you said “playoff/elimination games they must win to have a chance to play for the national championship.” So Florida could beat LSU in the regular season & then LSU could beat Florida in the SEC Championship game, yet LSU misses out on the National Championship because of theri ‘ONE’ loss, yet because Southern Cal. has no conference championship game they get an automatic bid to play in the NC?? Nope. Still not a playoff. Not even close. Now they should be some good games for the most part, but make no mistake, they’re not playoff games.

By Lee Curso

September 18, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

still need a playoff. 11 conference champs, 5 at-large teams. 4 weeks.

By RxDawg

September 18, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Ah…notice any difference in the “playoff games” that each of those teams has to play? It just doesnt count. Lets take the top 4 or 8 and put them up against each other. Still makes the season very exciting like it is now, and then there is no controversy. If your #9 then your not good enough anyways.

By Riiiiight

September 18, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Just looking at the schedule LSU and Florida have to face compared to the others shows the flaws in your “playoff system”. Those two teams could easily eliminate each other from contention altogether. Any system that eliminates you from contention if you lose one game during the entire season is not a good one.

By GT_JJ

September 18, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Really stupid column, Tony. Also, I think you’re full of it. Are you telling me that if Florida loses to LSU by a field goal in Baton Rouge then goes on to run the table and beat the Tigers in the SEC championship game, they have no shot at the BCS title game? You and I both know that’s BS. If only one team out of USC, Oklahoma, and WVU ended up unbeaten, I GUARANTEE it would be Florida in the BCS title game, given the scenario I’m describing. And if two of those teams were unbeaten and ended up in the title game, you would be one of the SEC Homers shouting the loudest about how unfair the system is (especially if one of those unbeatens was WVU).

Let’s extend the hypothetical scenario and say that BC goes undefeated in a down year for the ACC. Again, I would lay 100-to-1 odds that Florida (with one loss to LSU and an impressive end of season win over LSU) would get into the title game over unbeaten BC. Thus, BC has almost no shot. THIS IS NOT A PLAYOFF SYSTEM IF A MAJOR CONFERENCE CHAMPION HAS LITTLE OR NO CHANCE AT THE CHAMPIONSHIP!

Plus, you state that either LSU or Florida would have to beat the other team twice to get to the BCS title game, yet you still compare this to a playoff system. Last I checked, there was no football league anywhere with a double elimination playoff, where there’s a chance of facing the same team twice.

I’m sick of sports writers trying to defend the current system. The system is in place for only one reason: MONEY! You know it as well as I do. Any attempt to try to say the system is comparable to or better than a potential playoff system is idiotic.

By TCBinATL

September 18, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this

Everyone with a brain says we don’t have a playoff.

By your rationale, in the NFL the two teams with the best records at the end of the regular season (and, in the case of ties, the most popularity/votes) would immediately go to the Super Bowl. After all, doesn’t the regular season count as a playoff???

No, no, no, and no.

By Airheadmotorcycle

September 18, 2007 7:39 PM | Link to this

dawgbone said:

“You are overlooking the fact that Fla. has to play Ga. They better not overlook it!”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… stop it dawgbone, my side hurts, man.

By NorCal Dawg

September 18, 2007 8:32 PM | Link to this

There is no playoff in college football and we don’t need one.

FACT: I am a Georgia fan who can’t wait to watch the LSU / Florida game.

FACT: If there was a 16 team playoff I could care less about that game because you know they are both going to make the playoffs.

Same can be said for dozens of great games I’ve watched in the past (ND/USC a couple years ago, MI/OSU last year, etc.).

System is not perfect, but we don’t need a playoff. Do you want to turn this into College Basketball where no one cares about the first three months of the season?

By RxDawg

September 18, 2007 10:16 PM | Link to this

Good point NorCal Dawg, and I’m in complete agreement with you. However, I believe that an 8 team playoff would not degrade our wonderful regular season. Take 6 major conference champs and 2 at larges. Its gona be tough to still rank high enough to get the at large and/or as we all know in the SEC win your conference. This system makes so much sense to me I BEG someone to debate and say why it wouldnt work. I really cant see any drawback to this except it will degrade the classic bowls….awe shucks.

By Southern Irish

September 18, 2007 10:51 PM | Link to this

Just because West Virginia is in a semi-cake walk conference does not mean it is not a top five team. THAT is a good reason why to have a play off system. They could go undefeated and still not play in the championship because they play in a weak conference. If you have seen them you know they are top five.

and winning your conference is a very big deal. a play off would not weaken that at all

By adawginpa

September 19, 2007 1:00 AM | Link to this

okay RX dawg. Last year Boise state finished the regular saeson (th in the polls. Would not have made your “playoffs.”

I agree with NorCalDawg. Do not turn cfb into cbb. I may not always be happy with the results, but I do have to watch every game because the games matter.

By adawginpa

September 19, 2007 1:01 AM | Link to this

Sorry meant BSUwas 9th last year.

By Father of 5

September 19, 2007 6:23 AM | Link to this

College football is the best sport, bar none, on the field on Saturday. Off the field, and with one exception during bowl season, college football is no better than ice skating. It comes down to who biased people consider the prettiest. That part is sickening.

By No Dawgs Here

September 19, 2007 7:59 AM | Link to this

The biggest issue with the whole thing is, some conferences are better than others. The current system almost rewards those schools in weak conferences. While schools in those tougher conferences spend all season beating each other up. It seems that a 1 loss team in the SEC would be far better and an undefeated team in the Conference USA. PAC 10, ACC or Big East. Just my opinion.

By Steeledawg

September 19, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

In my opinion, college football fans have gotten to concerned with National Championships. Conference titles are earned on the field, especially in the SEC.

There will never be a fair way to determine a true NC. Would last years undefeated Boise State team hold up to the rigors of an SEC, Big12, PAC10, etc. schedule? Who knows? Maybe. Maybe not. There is just to big of a disparity between conferences to clearly evalutate teams from different conferences.

By can't we all just get along

September 19, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

It sounds to me that conference championship games should only count for conference championships and have nothing to do with the national championship. And I agree that there have been some 1-loss teams that deserved to play for the national championship over other undefeated teams. For example, Penn State in 1982 had one loss and played an undefeated Georgia team in the Sugar Bowl. Many thought SMU (who was undefeated with one tie) should have gotten the opportunity. Who knows? All I know is Penn State made Hershel Walker look like a “walk-on” on their way to their first national title. Hmmmm…the SEC’s “best” lost to a 1-loss team. Maybe they should have sent Alabama that year since they were Penn State’s only loss.

By jimbo

September 19, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Why even play the rest of the games??? Let’s just have everyone’s season end when they lose. Dump the BCS you money loving corpo drone.

By Steeledawg

September 19, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

I think the argument to be made is could those undefeated teams from a “smaller” conferences sustain excellence from week to week and keep winning. I firmly believe that with a month to prepare, any coaching staff worth their salt could get a team of talented, but overlooked players ready for one game to win it all. It’s the cumulative effect of playing a season against equal or better athletes week after week that is the true measure of a championship team.

By SoCal Gator

September 19, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

NorCal Dawg you’re an idiot. I love college basketball and being from NC when UNC plays Duke in the regular season, it’s the greatest game on Earth. Nothing compares ot it. March Madness is something special. There we get to find out who the real national champion is. It takes nothing from the regular season. It seems to me that the power basketball teams have no problem filling their domes, just try to get a ticket to a Florida, Carolina, Duke, UCLA game. You’re an idiot. Simply put, take the winner of the top 6 major conferences, then take the remaining 2 or 10 teams (8 or 16 team playoff) from the BCS rankings of those that didn’t win their conference and have a playoff run.

The rest of the teams go to bowl games. The Gaylord Bowl means nothing today and it would mean nothing with a playoff system. It’s a congratulatory game for a team that won more than 6 games. Big whoop-dy-do. Let those lesser teams play the bowl games and incorporate the top bowls into a championship format. 8 or 16 teams, I don’t care which.

Basketball has no problem losing interest during the season, football won’t either. Get off me! And get off your money loving train. This is about the love of the game, not who will lose money if this happens. heck, the schools would stand to make more money with a playoff system.

By Mudbug00

September 19, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

SOCal Gator, I gotta agree. I don’t have a lot of interest in basketball, although I do follow the ladies that play for LSU. But the regular season never hurts the events played out during March Madness.

Any BCS football team should have an equal chance to play any other BCS team for the National Championship. I would be thrilled to see a TCU, Louisville, or Tulane walk away with the crystal football, but it can never happen with the BSC format.

Even teams like Auburn, Texas Tech, or West Virginia has scant chance because the Media Darlings like Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Oklahoma,or Ohio State will always get first look from the pollsters and if they are half-way decent, will shine in the polls.

Ditch the BCS. Play bowls with the lesser teams, or even those losers from the playoffs. But lets finally get a playoff system that hands the trophy to the last team standing.

By Jerry Gray

September 20, 2007 6:59 AM | Link to this

Suggesting the regular season is a “playoff” insults the intelligence of your readers and, frankly, diminishes your credibility. By definition, a playoff happens AFTER the season. If you don’t want a playoff, fine. Just don’t try to justify your position by calling the season a playoff. The absurdity of Div 1A’s lack of a playoff is laughable, and its champion will forever be tarnished until their trophy is won on the field against the best teams. By the way, the Patriots will likely lose 2 to 3 times this year. However, would anyone argue against their championship credentials if they win the Super Bowl? No! The expectation that the Div 1A champion will be virtually perfect, without a pre-season to work out the kinks, without a schedule that provide equitable competition for everyone is a joke!