BCS going away in favor of 4 team playoff

[JohnStOnge]

BK, we don't know...ever...who the two "best" teams are. We have opinions. We have power ratings estimates. But we don't have any way to really measure who are two "best" teams.

It's not like saying we want to pick the two tallest trees where you can pull out a measuring tape and objectively, concretely measure to identify the two tallest trees.

And, again, there may not really be two "best" teams. Again: Team A might be more likely than not to beat team B, team B might be more likely than not to beat team C, and team C might be more likely than not to beat team A due to the way the three teams match up with each other in terms of strengths and weaknesses, etc.

So you don't worry about the "best teams" question. You set up a system where every team in the realm is guaranteed that if it never loses a game it wins the championship. No opinions involved except for the fact that you probably allow at large bids. And that's how you get a true champion. The champion is the team left standing at the end. Whether they're the "best team" or not is irrelevant.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, the ideal is pretty much reflected by the NFL. Everybody knows exactly how it works. There is absolutely no involvement at the end of the regular season of opinion as to who the "best team" or the "two best teams" are when it comes to who gets into the tournament. Then the chips fall where they may.

I didn't hear anybody questioning who the NFL champion was when Green Bay won it in the 2011 Super Bowl after finishing with a 10-6 record. And we didn't hear anybody questioning it after the Giants won it in the most recent Super Bowl after finishing the regular season 9-7. Also, nobody said that the regular season was meaningless.

And let's say we go with something where people say the regular season is meaningless like NCAA basketball. Regardless of that, how much support do you think you'd get among NCAA basketball fans for going to a system where a selection committee picks four college basketball teams four a championship tournament?

I think you know the answer. It'd be pretty close to 0% support. And that's because in spite of the fact that NCAA basketball has screwed up in various ways the system it has for picking a champion is still much better than the system FBS football has.

[clenz]

The regular season in CBB isn't meaningless because of the number of teams (although there is too many)....it's meaningless because the regular season champion isn't rewarded with anything (other than an NIT bid)....it's all about who has the hottest 3-4 days during the tournament.

[SuperHornet]

The regular season in CBB isn't meaningless because of the number of teams (although there is too many)....it's meaningless because the regular season champion isn't rewarded with anything (other than an NIT bid)....it's all about who has the hottest 3-4 days during the tournament.

There's something to be said for that, clenz, but there are limits. Some conferences limit the number of teams in their conference tournaments. Therefore, one can say that the regular season has done SOMETHING in those leagues: teams have been eliminated before the post-season even starts.

[clenz]

The regular season in CBB isn't meaningless because of the number of teams (although there is too many)....it's meaningless because the regular season champion isn't rewarded with anything (other than an NIT bid)....it's all about who has the hottest 3-4 days during the tournament.

There's something to be said for that, clenz, but there are limits. Some conferences limit the number of teams in their conference tournaments. Therefore, one can say that the regular season has done SOMETHING in those leagues: teams have been eliminated before the post-season even starts.

That still doesn't matter......


I'll use the MVC as an example....one of the best "mid-major" conferences in the nation. We have lost multiple bid chances the last couple years because a team got hot during the tournament and the regular season champion - who deserved an at-large - gets left out. 2010-2011 third place Indiana State gets hot and wins the tournament - the top 2 seeds in the MVC (both with high RPIs) get left out.....What did the regular season end up doing for either one of those schools?


That can be played out all over the country with leagues that are fighting for 2 or 3 bids....or conferences like the Big Sky that will likely almost never get a second bid.

What if Montana State had won the conference tournament last year....Weber wasn't getting in as an at-large....what did the regular season really mean to them then?


What's the point of being a regular season conference champion? There is non.

[JohnStOnge]

The regular season in CBB isn't meaningless because of the number of teams (although there is too many)....it's meaningless because the regular season champion isn't rewarded with anything (other than an NIT bid)....it's all about who has the hottest 3-4 days during the tournament.

I agree that the conference tournament thing is a factor but I think the number of teams is a factor as well.

When there are so many at large bids that 9 teams can get in from one major conference with 8 being at large bids there's not going to be a whole lot of urgency surrounding regular season games for most of the teams in that league. For them the tournament doesn't matter that much either unless they're near the bottom and get into the tournament thinking winning it or at least winning some games in it gives them a shot.

Where the tournament thing is really bad is in the single bid leagues (as you say). When a team can finish in the bottom half of its league then get into a tournament that's going to determine who goes to the NCAA tournament...with the regular season champ left out if it doesn't win... it creates a situation where you might as well not even play a regular season.

I posted this before but think about what would happen under this paradigm:

The tournament includes 42 teams with 33 being the REGULAR SEASON champions of the 33 D-I conferences and 9 being at large bids. The 9 at large bids are automatically tabbed. The 9 teams that are not conference champions who are ranked highest by an objective power rating system agreed upon PRIOR TO THE SEASON are in . NO SELECTION COMMITTEE. Then if people don't like the results of the power rating system they can re design it prior to the next season. But no judgements and personal opinions after the fact.

Now the regular season becomes EXTREMELY important to every team in D-I. And every D-I team that's in a conference controls its own destiny. Even if you're in a major conference you know that the number of at large bids is very limited and you need to win your conference.

The handful of independents (4 last year) don't control their own destiny...but there's really no way to do anything about that. The power rating system gives them a theoretical shot. If they manage to schedule tough and go undefeated they can get in.

Again, the point isn't to end up with "the best team" as champion or to get "the best" 42 teams into the tournament. The point is to end up with a champion using a system as close as possible to one where, once the playing starts, every team controls its own destiny, the opinions about who's best are irrelevant, and one team is left standing at the end. Yeah there's no doubt that it's not going to be the 42 best teams but teams in leagues like the ACC know going in what they have to do to get into the tournament so if they don't they had their chance.

[SuperHornet]

Why 42? That's not a "convenient" number, JSO. I'd prefer 64, but even 48 would be easier to deal with. Powers of two work best, but the next best thing would be midway between powers of two. I'm not really a fan of byes for important tournaments.

[rkwittem]

This was the most recent game I could find of Boise playing Georgia at Georgia.

It's college football. You have complete roster turnover every 5 years so what Georgia did to Boise in 2005 should have no impact on how you rank Georgia, Boise or TCU in 2010 or 2011. And Atlanta is a de facto home game for Georgia just as New Orleans and even Dallas are de facto home games for LSU. The fact that Boise, Oregon and others are willing to schedule those kinds of "neutral site" games in hostile environments tells you who really has the cojones in college football.

Why do the big boys need to prove they have cojones? They have 8-9 tough games a year in conference. That's at least a half-dozen more than TCU and Boise State have even when they get to play Va Tech or Georgia or Baylor or whoever they get in their bowl game. Just because you have to schedule tough games doesn't mean you have big cojones. Doing your job right and doing it because you should are not the same as doing it because it is right or courageous or difficult, etc.

[SuperHornet]

There's a problem with that logic. Holding one team "responsible" for a lack of SOS when others refuse to schedule them but letting others off because they have SOS "built in" doesn't work. It's circular reasoning at its worst.

[JohnStOnge]

Why 42? That's not a "convenient" number, JSO. I'd prefer 64, but even 48 would be easier to deal with. Powers of two work best, but the next best thing would be midway between powers of two. I'm not really a fan of byes for important tournaments.

There are 33 D-I basketball conferences. If there were 32 you could say just take the 32 conference champions and I would be fine with that. But the fact that there are 33 means you have to have some way of getting to a even numbers bracket.

42was the minimum number I thought of that makes that possible. You seed the teams 1 through 42 then thake the bottom 20 seeds and have them play in the first round. That produces 10 teams and you have another 32 teams that had a bye so you're at 32 and can proceed from there.

Though actually I guess you could say you just let the champions of the 32nd and 33rd ranked conferences play to select the 32nd team and go from there. But then there would be no possibility for an independent. The point is that it'd be very easy to design a system that allows every team in a conference to control its own destiny while at the same time making the regular season very meaningful.

[UNI88]

It's college football. You have complete roster turnover every 5 years so what Georgia did to Boise in 2005 should have no impact on how you rank Georgia, Boise or TCU in 2010 or 2011. And Atlanta is a de facto home game for Georgia just as New Orleans and even Dallas are de facto home games for LSU. The fact that Boise, Oregon and others are willing to schedule those kinds of "neutral site" games in hostile environments tells you who really has the cojones in college football.

Why do the big boys need to prove they have cojones? They have 8-9 tough games a year in conference. That's at least a half-dozen more than TCU and Boise State have even when they get to play Va Tech or Georgia or Baylor or whoever they get in their bowl game. Just because you have to schedule tough games doesn't mean you have big cojones. Doing your job right and doing it because you should are not the same as doing it because it is right or courageous or difficult, etc.

As SH says it's circular reasoning to say that Boise, TCU, etc. aren't as deserving as the BCS schools because they don't have the SOS and then turn around and say the BCS schools don't have to play them because they already have a strong SOS. It's hypocritical to say "you're schedule isn't strong enough and by the way we won't give you the chance to have a strong schedule."

One of the great things about college football (and basketball) is that it is a microcosm of America. It's a "land of opportunity" where the little guy through hard work and determination can rise up and make something of him or herself. That's what TCU, Boise and Utah (and Butler, Gonzaga, etc. in basketball) have done and it's part of the appeal and it actually increases the casual fan's interest and thus increases revenues.

Realistically, I don't think I'm going to change your mind and I know you're not going to change mine so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[rkwittem]

Why do the big boys need to prove they have cojones? They have 8-9 tough games a year in conference. That's at least a half-dozen more than TCU and Boise State have even when they get to play Va Tech or Georgia or Baylor or whoever they get in their bowl game. Just because you have to schedule tough games doesn't mean you have big cojones. Doing your job right and doing it because you should are not the same as doing it because it is right or courageous or difficult, etc.

As SH says it's circular reasoning to say that Boise, TCU, etc. aren't as deserving as the BCS schools because they don't have the SOS and then turn around and say the BCS schools don't have to play them because they already have a strong SOS. It's hypocritical to say "you're schedule isn't strong enough and by the way we won't give you the chance to have a strong schedule."

One of the great things about college football (and basketball) is that it is a microcosm of America. It's a "land of opportunity" where the little guy through hard work and determination can rise up and make something of him or herself. That's what TCU, Boise and Utah (and Butler, Gonzaga, etc. in basketball) have done and it's part of the appeal and it actually increases the casual fan's interest and thus increases revenues.

Realistically, I don't think I'm going to change your mind and I know you're not going to change mine so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Since when do the big guys owe the little guys anything? They don't. College football is not socialism. It is a solid example of capitalism. You can't guilt trip the BCS conference schools for not playing Boise State. They don't have to. Boise has to make their offers and go out of their way to play them (like a 3 for one home-and-home tradeoff or reduced payment, etc.) and that might be unfair, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Boise and TCU do not move the meter like the big boys do. If we could test it, I bet a bowl game between a 2-loss Alabama and USC for example would far outstrip what an undefeated Boise State would bring ratings and fan revenue wise. That's been the NCAA tournament's experience. Butler may be interesting because they're a novelty, but the NCAA and TV folks want Duke, UNC, Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky, and one of the prominent Big East schools there because they guarantee ratings. The majority of America wants to see the big boys in the big moments. They might be cheering against them, but they're watching and that's all that matters to the folks in charge.

[JohnStOnge]

Since when do the big guys owe the little guys anything? They don't. College football is not socialism. It is a solid example of capitalism. You can't guilt trip the BCS conference schools for not playing Boise State.

One thing I WILL say is that it would make sense to pare down the number of teams that are in the top level of college football. There are about 50 programs or so that really belong in that top level. Maybe 60. Troy, Toledo, New Mexico, and Southern Mississippi don't belong in the same level as Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, and USC. There is just too much difference in resource levels and fan support.

The 50 or 60 programs that really belong in the top level generate over 90% of the interest and revenue. Actually probably that's understating it. And there's no reason they should be expected to continue to allow the Arkansas State's of the world parasitize them. But the way they should put a stop to that is demand that the Arkansas States and North Texas' of the world not be allowed to participate in that top level of college football where they don't belong. One way of doing that would be to establish criteria based on resource levels and fan support. And the attendance requirement ought to be a whole lot higher than it is now.

Then they can have the type of playoff I'm talking about.

[UNI88]

As SH says it's circular reasoning to say that Boise, TCU, etc. aren't as deserving as the BCS schools because they don't have the SOS and then turn around and say the BCS schools don't have to play them because they already have a strong SOS. It's hypocritical to say "you're schedule isn't strong enough and by the way we won't give you the chance to have a strong schedule."

One of the great things about college football (and basketball) is that it is a microcosm of America. It's a "land of opportunity" where the little guy through hard work and determination can rise up and make something of him or herself. That's what TCU, Boise and Utah (and Butler, Gonzaga, etc. in basketball) have done and it's part of the appeal and it actually increases the casual fan's interest and thus increases revenues.

Realistically, I don't think I'm going to change your mind and I know you're not going to change mine so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Since when do the big guys owe the little guys anything? They don't. College football is not socialism. It is a solid example of capitalism. You can't guilt trip the BCS conference schools for not playing Boise State. They don't have to. Boise has to make their offers and go out of their way to play them (like a 3 for one home-and-home tradeoff or reduced payment, etc.) and that might be unfair, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Boise and TCU do not move the meter like the big boys do. If we could test it, I bet a bowl game between a 2-loss Alabama and USC for example would far outstrip what an undefeated Boise State would bring ratings and fan revenue wise. That's been the NCAA tournament's experience. Butler may be interesting because they're a novelty, but the NCAA and TV folks want Duke, UNC, Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky, and one of the prominent Big East schools there because they guarantee ratings. The majority of America wants to see the big boys in the big moments. They might be cheering against them, but they're watching and that's all that matters to the folks in charge.

Wrong on so many levels ...

What you describe is not capitalism. Capitalism is about competition and letting the markets decide. What the BCS schools and conferences have and want to maintain is a type of monopoly where they decide what is best for themselves and everyone else and act accordingly. This is similar to a planned economy favored by your more hard-core socialist.

I didn't say the big guys owe the little guys anything. They don't have to play them but they can't have their cake (i.e. say the little guys SOS isn't strong enough) and eat it too (i.e. refuse to play them). That's hypocrisy plain and simple.

There is also no doubt that the fans want the big boys to be in the championship but it is good for interest and ratings if the little guy has a chance. This is America, we have a natural inclination to pull for the little guy. If there were a 4 team playoff and Boise or TCU made it, serious and casual fans would want to see how they did against the big boys on the big stage. If they pulled off an upset and played in the NC game, fan interest would spike at the possibility of a Cinderella winning it all. The same is true in basketball - who will be this year's Cinderella drives interest in what is now the 2nd and 3rd rounds and into the 4th and 5th. Fans might not want to see 4 Cinderellas in the Final 4 but they do like to see 1 make a run at it.

Another thing you don't seem to understand is the cyclical nature of college sports. 30 years ago Kansas was a moderately successful college basketball team with a rich tradition (3rd winningest program in the NCAA), St. Johns wass a better program also rich in tradition (4th winningest program at the time), UNLV was the big-boy powerhouse. Look how times have changed - should we prevent similar shifts in the future to protect the "monopoly"? Similar changes have happened in college football - research what Howard Schnellenberger did at Miami. He revolutionized college football and created an environment where the drama drove interest and increased revenues for college football over the long haul. Protecting the status quo means preventing that from happening in the future.

[SuperHornet]

Since when do the big guys owe the little guys anything? They don't. College football is not socialism. It is a solid example of capitalism. You can't guilt trip the BCS conference schools for not playing Boise State. They don't have to. Boise has to make their offers and go out of their way to play them (like a 3 for one home-and-home tradeoff or reduced payment, etc.) and that might be unfair, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Boise and TCU do not move the meter like the big boys do. If we could test it, I bet a bowl game between a 2-loss Alabama and USC for example would far outstrip what an undefeated Boise State would bring ratings and fan revenue wise. That's been the NCAA tournament's experience. Butler may be interesting because they're a novelty, but the NCAA and TV folks want Duke, UNC, Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky, and one of the prominent Big East schools there because they guarantee ratings. The majority of America wants to see the big boys in the big moments. They might be cheering against them, but they're watching and that's all that matters to the folks in charge.

Wrong on so many levels ...

What you describe is not capitalism. Capitalism is about competition and letting the markets decide. What the BCS schools and conferences have and want to maintain is a type of monopoly where they decide what is best for themselves and everyone else and act accordingly. This is similar to a planned economy favored by your more hard-core socialist.

I didn't say the big guys owe the little guys anything. They don't have to play them but they can't have their cake (i.e. say the little guys SOS isn't strong enough) and eat it too (i.e. refuse to play them). That's hypocrisy plain and simple.

There is also no doubt that the fans want the big boys to be in the championship but it is good for interest and ratings if the little guy has a chance. This is America, we have a natural inclination to pull for the little guy. If there were a 4 team playoff and Boise or TCU made it, serious and casual fans would want to see how they did against the big boys on the big stage. If they pulled off an upset and played in the NC game, fan interest would spike at the possibility of a Cinderella winning it all. The same is true in basketball - who will be this year's Cinderella drives interest in what is now the 2nd and 3rd rounds and into the 4th and 5th. Fans might not want to see 4 Cinderellas in the Final 4 but they do like to see 1 make a run at it.

Another thing you don't seem to understand is the cyclical nature of college sports. 30 years ago Kansas was a moderately successful college basketball team with a rich tradition (3rd winningest program in the NCAA), St. Johns wass a better program also rich in tradition (4th winningest program at the time), UNLV was the big-boy powerhouse. Look how times have changed - should we prevent similar shifts in the future to protect the "monopoly"? Similar changes have happened in college football - research what Howard Schnellenberger did at Miami. He revolutionized college football and created an environment where the drama drove interest and increased revenues for college football over the long haul. Protecting the status quo means preventing that from happening in the future.

[rkwittem]

I guarantee fan interest would not spike. Boise State =/= Alabama/Ohio State/USC/Texas/Oklahoma/Florida State in terms of fan interest. You knock out one of the big guns, and you'll lose a sizable chunk of viewers. I am beyond fed up with this stupid "America loves the little guy" bullshit I hear all the goddamn time. It's simply not true in sports. Big-time teams with more fans and more tradition (usually, but they are not joined at the hip) drive the $$$ express behind sports. The Tampa Bay Rays, Butler Bulldogs, Boise State Broncos, and your garden-variety NFL wild card teams do not. The Yankees, Duke, Alabama Crimson Tide, and Cowboys/Packers/Steelers/Patriots get to ride shotgun on that train for beyond obvious reason. It makes me puke when teams I could care less about make meaningful game when teams that put in more legwork get jobbed in some fashion or another.

Boise State doesn't butter ESPN's bread. The SEC, Big XII and B1G do that. Only an idiot would possibly think having a garbage program like Boise would boost ratings, no matter how good they may/may not be. You'd trade Alabama's viewership for Idaho's? I didn't think so. I also don't think very many people nationally would be happy if an undefeated Boise made the playoff over a 1- or 2-loss team from a legitimate conference got snubbed in favor of Boise. College football needs to remember not to bite the hand that feeds it. That hand isn't blue and orange, either. (Unless we're talking Florida)

I would protect the monopoly so long as it guaranteed me a steady stream of elite USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc. teams to duke it out. Sucks if you're not one of them. Guess you should have put more work in, then maybe you'd have reached their level instead of settling for mediocrity earlier in your existence.
Think about the greatest championship games in recent memory- I'd put the Ohio State-Miami Fiesta at 1A/B and the Texas-USC Rose Bowl at 1A/B.
- Guess what they have in common? HUGE, all-time great traditional powerhouse schools enjoying years where at least a third of their roster had NFL-level talent and were undefeated heading into their game. They didn't disappoint either. I'd put them both as my 2 all-time favorite games I can remember watching off the top of my head. That's what is threatened by this stupid playoff. We add an unnecessary game. Most years, 1 and 2 are pretty dang obvious. You can break out your list of teams that got snubbed, but for every one of them, I can find a year that got it right.

Like I said, I'm an elitist snob. No second-class citizens invited to my ideal college football playoff. If 75% of your schedule is non-BCS teams, you have NO business playing in any meaningful, relevant postseason games! If you're not cool with that, join another conference and please stop complaining about how the big guys won't help you out. They're not your benefactor. The SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, and Big XII do not exist to serve the mid-major conferences. They are there to field the best teams possible and match with the best their conference has to offer. (Except in years where a lucky SEC East team somehow misses out on LSU and Alabama.)

One could argue that what Howard Schnellenberger achieved could have been achieved by another coach. They might not have had Schnellenberger's charisma or leadership style, but south Florida was just starting to churn out elite division 1 football players that came from rough backgrounds and become the villains of college football.

[89Hen]

Think about the greatest championship games in recent memory- I'd put the Ohio State-Miami Fiesta at 1A/B and the Texas-USC Rose Bowl at 1A/B.
- Guess what they have in common?

They were for the National Championship?

[UNI88]

Think about the greatest championship games in recent memory- I'd put the Ohio State-Miami Fiesta at 1A/B and the Texas-USC Rose Bowl at 1A/B.

But if your big-boys only single national championship game approach had been adopted 30+ years ago Ohio State-Miami never would have happened. The big-boys wouldn't have let Miami in their conference, wouldn't have scheduled them and they wouldn't have been on tv as much, their recruiting would have suffered and they never would have achieved the success they did. College football would have been worse off without that game, Catholics vs. Convicts, and all the other drama that the U brought to the game.

Protecting the status quo keeps a future Miami from happening.

[UNI88]

Like I said, I'm an elitist snob. No second-class citizens invited to my ideal college football playoff. If 75% of your schedule is non-BCS teams, you have NO business playing in any meaningful, relevant postseason games! If you're not cool with that, join another conference and please stop complaining about how the big guys won't help you out. They're not your benefactor. The SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, and Big XII do not exist to serve the mid-major conferences. They are there to field the best teams possible and match with the best their conference has to offer. (Except in years where a lucky SEC East team somehow misses out on LSU and Alabama.)

So if Boise beats the crap out of Georgia in a season opener and finishes 12-0 while Georgia goes undefeated the rest of the way to finish 12-1 and win the SEC (the best conference in college football), Boise has no business in a relevant postseason game?

SOS is important but you have to look at how they did against the teams they played and compare that to what other teams did. There have been years where Boise, TCU or Utah's body of work has been better than a BCS conference champion that year (most likely a Big East, ACC or B1G0 champ).

And you make it seem like joining a BCS conference is as easy as joining a gym, all you have to do is apply? You don't think that Boise would love to join the PAC 12 or Big 12? If college football followed a capitalist model then a conference would kick out a consistent bottom feeder and welcome Boise but it's a monopoly and doesn't work that way. IMO, Boise is building a national brand similar to what Miami did and will become much more attractive to a major conference as time goes on (I'm assuming the Big East dalliance isn't going to work out).

[tampajag]

Think about the greatest championship games in recent memory- I'd put the Ohio State-Miami Fiesta at 1A/B and the Texas-USC Rose Bowl at 1A/B.

But if your big-boys only single national championship game approach had been adopted 30+ years ago Ohio State-Miami never would have happened. The big-boys wouldn't have let Miami in their conference, wouldn't have scheduled them and they wouldn't have been on tv as much, their recruiting would have suffered and they never would have achieved the success they did. College football would have been worse off without that game, Catholics vs. Convicts, and all the other drama that the U brought to the game.

Protecting the status quo keeps a future Miami from happening.

Miami/Notre Dame played every year from 65 to 90 including the first 5 in Miami. Besides Miami didn't exactly join a football powerhouse league but by that time they were their own brand that nobody could ignore.

[rkwittem]

Like I said, I'm an elitist snob. No second-class citizens invited to my ideal college football playoff. If 75% of your schedule is non-BCS teams, you have NO business playing in any meaningful, relevant postseason games! If you're not cool with that, join another conference and please stop complaining about how the big guys won't help you out. They're not your benefactor. The SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, and Big XII do not exist to serve the mid-major conferences. They are there to field the best teams possible and match with the best their conference has to offer. (Except in years where a lucky SEC East team somehow misses out on LSU and Alabama.)

So if Boise beats the crap out of Georgia in a season opener and finishes 12-0 while Georgia goes undefeated the rest of the way to finish 12-1 and win the SEC (the best conference in college football), Boise has no business in a relevant postseason game?

SOS is important but you have to look at how they did against the teams they played and compare that to what other teams did. There have been years where Boise, TCU or Utah's body of work has been better than a BCS conference champion that year (most likely a Big East, ACC or B1G0 champ).

And you make it seem like joining a BCS conference is as easy as joining a gym, all you have to do is apply? You don't think that Boise would love to join the PAC 12 or Big 12? If college football followed a capitalist model then a conference would kick out a consistent bottom feeder and welcome Boise but it's a monopoly and doesn't work that way. IMO, Boise is building a national brand similar to what Miami did and will become much more attractive to a major conference as time goes on (I'm assuming the Big East dalliance isn't going to work out).

A 12-1 SEC champ team is automatically better than any undefeated mid-major, even if they lost to them. Just like the Packers were better than the Giants last year. Just because you win does not mean you are the all-around better or more worthy team. One win does not a season define any more than one loss. Any one-loss SEC team should be selected for a playoff over any non-BCS, non-Notre Dame team if they're the last 2 teams for that #4 spot.

[89Hen]

One win does not a season define any more than one loss.

Really?

[UNI88]

But if your big-boys only single national championship game approach had been adopted 30+ years ago Ohio State-Miami never would have happened. The big-boys wouldn't have let Miami in their conference, wouldn't have scheduled them and they wouldn't have been on tv as much, their recruiting would have suffered and they never would have achieved the success they did. College football would have been worse off without that game, Catholics vs. Convicts, and all the other drama that the U brought to the game.

Protecting the status quo keeps a future Miami from happening.

Miami/Notre Dame played every year from 65 to 90 including the first 5 in Miami. Besides Miami didn't exactly join a football powerhouse league but by that time they were their own brand that nobody could ignore.

But with RKW's solution to college football's woes there would be a single national championship game and only teams from the big boy conferences plus Notre Dame would be eligible. If this had been applied in the past, Miami despite playing ND every year would have had a much more difficult time grabbing the spotlight and making something out of themselves. The 83 Canes wouldn't have been invited to the Orange Bowl, the championship game back then would have been reserved for the winningest teams in the Big10, PAC10, Big8, Southwest and SEC conferences.

[UNI88]

So if Boise beats the crap out of Georgia in a season opener and finishes 12-0 while Georgia goes undefeated the rest of the way to finish 12-1 and win the SEC (the best conference in college football), Boise has no business in a relevant postseason game?

SOS is important but you have to look at how they did against the teams they played and compare that to what other teams did. There have been years where Boise, TCU or Utah's body of work has been better than a BCS conference champion that year (most likely a Big East, ACC or B1G0 champ).

And you make it seem like joining a BCS conference is as easy as joining a gym, all you have to do is apply? You don't think that Boise would love to join the PAC 12 or Big 12? If college football followed a capitalist model then a conference would kick out a consistent bottom feeder and welcome Boise but it's a monopoly and doesn't work that way. IMO, Boise is building a national brand similar to what Miami did and will become much more attractive to a major conference as time goes on (I'm assuming the Big East dalliance isn't going to work out).

A 12-1 SEC champ team is automatically better than any undefeated mid-major, even if they lost to them. Just like the Packers were better than the Giants last year. Just because you win does not mean you are the all-around better or more worthy team. One win does not a season define any more than one loss. Any one-loss SEC team should be selected for a playoff over any non-BCS, non-Notre Dame team if they're the last 2 teams for that #4 spot.

First, please "define meaningful, relevant postseason games". I would define these as any of the 6 New Years Eve/New Years Day bowl games beginning in 2014 whether they are playoff games or not. If that's a fair definition, you're saying that a 12-0 Boise that beat the 12-1 SEC champ isn't good enough for one of those games?

Second, since you're talking about a 4 team playoff in this instance - I'm pretty sure that a 12-1 SEC champ doesn't have to worry about getting the 4th seed. The more likely scenario based on recent history is where the first three seeds go to the SEC, Big12 and PAC12 champs and the 4th seed is up for grabs between a 2+ loss team from the B1G0, SEC or PAC12. Am I correct in saying that in your opinion, a 12-0 Boise that beat the SEC champ doesn't even belong in the conversation for consideration for the 4th seed in such a situation?

[rkwittem]

A 12-1 SEC champ team is automatically better than any undefeated mid-major, even if they lost to them. Just like the Packers were better than the Giants last year. Just because you win does not mean you are the all-around better or more worthy team. One win does not a season define any more than one loss. Any one-loss SEC team should be selected for a playoff over any non-BCS, non-Notre Dame team if they're the last 2 teams for that #4 spot.

First, please "define meaningful, relevant postseason games". I would define these as any of the 6 New Years Eve/New Years Day bowl games beginning in 2014 whether they are playoff games or not. If that's a fair definition, you're saying that a 12-0 Boise that beat the 12-1 SEC champ isn't good enough for one of those games?

Second, since you're talking about a 4 team playoff in this instance - I'm pretty sure that a 12-1 SEC champ doesn't have to worry about getting the 4th seed. The more likely scenario based on recent history is where the first three seeds go to the SEC, Big12 and PAC12 champs and the 4th seed is up for grabs between a 2+ loss team from the B1G0, SEC or PAC12. Am I correct in saying that in your opinion, a 12-0 Boise that beat the SEC champ doesn't even belong in the conversation for consideration for the 4th seed in such a situation?

I want to stress that college football did not have "woes" until this playoff started. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the NFL either. Thank god for that.

You have to consider who Boise State and Georgia play in an average year. Boise's MWC/WAC opponents are not that impressive. Yes, Fresno State, Utah State, Air Force, Wyoming, Colorado State, Hawaii, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Idaho, and TCU have had good teams from time to time. Obviously TCU was the big hog in that list. And Boise beat them all badly.
The problem is that for Georgia to go 12-1 and lose to Boise they would still have beaten a combination of Alabama, LSU, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vandy, Auburn, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State. Every single one of those programs are better than any of the programs on Boise's list except for the SEC's bottom feeders.

So which is more impressive- beating a collection that includes annually strong teams with one hideous/forgivable (depending on interpretation) loss or an undefeated schedule that beats almost every team west of the Great Plains that doesn't play in the Pac-12 and isn't BYU?

Moving to the Big East and playing Rutgers, Cincy, Louisville, USF, Pittsburgh, etc. is an improvement for Boise. It's still not enough for me at this point. The Big East sadly looks like the Mountain West conference now. It's hard to look at teams like Pitt that were once much more respected being non-AQ teams, but them's the breaks. What does the Pac-12 adding Colorado over Boise State tell you? To me it says that Boise isn't the cash cow darling the media wants you to think they are. They might be well-coached-overachieving-pain-in-the-asses to people like me, but to the big wigs of college football they look like a gimmick or something that suggests reduced profit. I'd don't know what word I was looking for there.