2007-09-23 00:41:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
After reading previous answers suggest that the players put on dresses, I am a little scared to actually answer this question. I'm not sure what dresses and soccer have to do with each other, but so be it.
I think it would be a better idea to have a playoff than not to. Consider this -
There are over 100 Division 1A teams. It isn't realistic to have enough teams schedule each other with their 2 or 3 out of conference games to get a honest feel for where teams stack up against each other.
Voting in biased where final scores are not.
Speculation is also biased, and still final scores are not.
I would like to believe that the best teams are the ones playing for the national title. As long as a biased system is determining who the best teams are, that isn't true. You all remember the 2003 season when there was a split decision as to who the national champion should be. LSU beat Oklahoma in the BCS title game, and USC won the Rose Bowl over Michigan to split the National Championship.
So, eliminate the Bowl Games and replace them with a 16 team playof to determine the National Champion. Eight winners of the nine "power" conferences. SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, Conference USA, Big East, PAC 10, WAC, and Mountain West and then 7 at large teams. Seed 1 to 16, and four weeks later, there is no debate over some team that should have deserved to play for the championship but not getting to.
In the end, I would like a team like Michigan, who dropped two games that they shouldn't have, to be able to win out and not be playing for nothing.
2007-09-23 01:29:50 · answer #1 · answered by lustatfirstbite 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There absolutely should be a playoff. The champion should be decided on the field, not a ballot.
You could take the top 16 teams and the playoffs would only last 4 weeks. Use the lower tier Bowl game sites for the early rounds and then move into the bigger ones for the semifinals. Rotate the Finals every year the way they do now with the BCS championship game. The teams that don't make the playoffs can still play in a bowl.
There is almost 2 months between the end of the season and the bowl games, so there is plenty of time.
16 teams would give most teams that are legitimate contenders a real shot. The 17th team would be mad, but then so is the 65th team in basketball when their tournament brackets are announced.
Just because the Patriots or Colts lose a game to the Raiders or Browns doesn't necessarily eliminate them from going to the Super Bowl.
2007-09-23 02:29:58 · answer #2 · answered by Jax Cop 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whatever Congress decides or doesn't decide, any legislation it tries to pass will be rendered moot. The mere attempt by legislators is nothing more than political grandstanding. It's like you saying you're against global warming. Sure, you're against it, but you can't make it change one way or another. Let's say such a bill does pass Congress. All the NCAA would have to do at that point is sue in the legislative branch and there the proposal will die. Congress would try to argue that the BCS is a living, breathing violation of existing anti-trust legislation but the fact is there is no violation no matter how anyone might try to spin the argument. However remote the possibility might be, every FBS team theoretically has a chance to play for the title. Thus, no anti-trust laws have been violated. And on top of that, there's nothing to stop any FBS team from dropping down to the FCS level where playoffs are in effect. Again, no anti-trust violation. It's not that I'm against a playoff but the financial reality of the situation is that the current bowl system without any doubt whatsoever generates more revenue than any 8 or 16 team playoff format ever could.
2016-05-21 06:31:48 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely there should be a playoff. The current bowl system could be modified so the top 15 current sites could participate in the playoff system with the top 16 teams participating. Number 1 would play Number 16, 2 would play 15 and so on until you had one champ that won 4 games against the best 16 in the country. The Playoffs would last 4 weeks and would generate enormous TV revenues and fan interest the current lame BCS system could never do because it leaves so many unanswered questions as to who the best team really is.
2007-09-23 02:42:09 · answer #4 · answered by perdidobums 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell Yeah!
They should take the top 8 ranked teams in the BCS & the first will play 8th, then the winner of 4&5 will play 1&8. 2 would play 7 & 3 would play 6 and those winners would play eachother. The final 2 teams playing eachother will be for the national championship. & if the sponsors & the BCS biatches wanna keep the bowl names then each of the games will keep a name so that every1 stays happy & we actually have a playoff for a champ instead of a bunch of old white men hand picking out champ or co-champ each year.
2007-09-23 01:18:44 · answer #5 · answered by cza227 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be fair, as much as I would like to see it, it wouldn't be able to work.
You couldn't take the top 8 teams. There would be such a problem figuring out who would be allowed in. Would a 11-1 WVU team be more deserving than a 10-2 Michigan? How bout a 12-0 Hawaii or a 11-1 LSU? The tournament would have to be huge to have it be ok. Like the top 24 with the top 8 teams getting byes.
It would be an escalated problem. Plus deciding where to play (I doubt southern team would enjoy a trip to Michigan or Wisconsion in December).
The bowl games allow a lot of teams to have something to brag about at the end of the year. It may suck once and awhile, but it works.
And I hate saying it.
2007-09-23 01:58:19 · answer #6 · answered by napalm_heartburn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There should be a 16-team playoff, where the entrants are either conference champions or at-large teams who are chosen without regards to polls and are based heavily on strength of schedule. The person who thinks that schools are going to schedule tough non-conference games if there's no incentive for them to do so (like the fact that a loss to a Georgia or a Texas Tech is worth more than a win over Illinois State) is living in Fantasyland.
2007-09-23 03:43:30 · answer #7 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! The old pre-BCS system was great! Go back to that, eliminate half the bowls we have now, and if we have a split champion, just consider that it's out of a pool of over 100 schools, and who cares!
No playoff! College football is great because it is unique, so why force it into the mould of every other freakin sport in the world??? I don't want it!
I know! I've got! Let's make them all put on dresses and play soccer instead instead of football, then have a home-and-away tourney like the Champions League in Europe, in which the best teams from the previous year compete to be this year's champion! How about that?
2007-09-23 00:51:02 · answer #8 · answered by Don Desengrasador 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes...It should be pretty obvious...The BCS is all about money...not about who the best team in college football is...
A playoff would be the only clear way to determine the TRUE best team in college football...Division I-AA has been doing it for a long time...
2007-09-23 01:26:10 · answer #9 · answered by Terry C. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they were to do it NFL-style, it would be a great way to determine who the national champ is since it gives every team involved in the playoffs an equal chance to win the title.
2007-09-23 00:46:57 · answer #10 · answered by lorenzo2003ca 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋