Who's the best in nation ???

And? Personally I'm fine with split national championships, as I don't see LSU and USC feeling all that deprived by halving theirs. Ditto for Georgia Tech in 1990. As for Boise State, remember that basically the same team was utterly destroyed by Georgia the year before. They beat a flawed Oklahoma team using trick plays, but do you honestly believe that they would have survived an SEC schedule unscathed? Letting a team into the party because they played only cupcakes just encourages teams to stop scheduling any strong competition. If Boise State or Hawaii or Utah want to have a crack at the tile, they should go on the road and play a good BCS conference opponent the way that every BCS conference team has to. South Florida has no history, but they're making noise because they choose to go into Auburn and they came out with the victory.

Your "solution" would solve nothing while creating new problems. Think about it, there would be enormous controversy over who would get those four spots. You're going to have a ton of one loss teams, and you're only going to create even more resentment and outrage by creating more spots while still arbitrarily deciding who gets to go. If you use the BCS system to select four spots, how is that any substantively different from two? And, as noted, you're still robbing the regular season of the magic that comes from knowing that any loss could be the end of your title hopes. If everyone knows that they have a mulligan, it's just not as big a deal.

The regular season in college basketball means very little aside from rivalry games. Did anyone besides Duke and State fans really care when UNC lost to Santa Clara? The most magical thing about college football is that every weekend has enormous importance, while in college basketball everyone just waits around for the conference championship and NCAA tournament.


If your goal is simply viewing entertainment, then a playoff is the way to go. If you're interested in finding out who the actual best team is, though, a playoff only makes things worse. The more hoops you ask a team to jump through, the more chance they'll slip up and fall, leaving the results more a matter of luck than skill. The current system is imperfect, but fine.

 

There are currently on a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler. There are more big games in the SEC, but they are the exception.

Basketball has more in season marque games because the penalty for losing one of these games is not very great, and in the end, they can actually benefit you with your seeding.

Aside from established rivalries, there are almost no intra-sectional games in football anymore because the downside is too great.

I think that if the top 8-16 teams were put into a tourney, more often than not you would end up with the best team as the champion. Currently, all you have is the best team among those either ranked 1 or 2.

 

The sad part is they are ranked #1 and they are even worse than they were last year.

 

That is very true but they might be fortunate this year in that there is no great team standing in the way. Last year they could not have beaten LSU, So Cal, and for sure Florida. This year every team has a weakness and it's been proven so. I don't think that Ohio State will beat Michigan so the point might be moot.

 

That Boise state team was NOTHING like they were the year before. They didn't have Ian Johnson driving down the field and they went like 9-4 or 10-3 and didn't win the WAC (it was a three way tie but Fresno held the tiebreaker I believe). Oklahoma should have been put away much sooner. Boise State almost tried to hand them the game choking away opportunities and they still won. They still beat Oklahoma who, while having flaws was still a top 10 team. They at least deserve SOME type of shot. Even if it's David vs. Goliath, they could have put up a better game against Florida than OSU did. The games don't mean as much to people in basketball because there are 40 games on the schedule. There's less emphasis on the games, but there would be a ton of emphasis on a 14 game schedule even with a playoff system. If College Football had a playoff it would get the highest ratings ever. It's the one thing holding college football back. OSU will beat Michigan. Tressell owns carr

 

They just better hope Florida doesn't get to beat the shit out them again.

 

in my opinion ohio state isnt the #1 team in the nation...i think that LSU (aassuming they dont loose again) is a pretty fair bet in the BCS championship...and it could be Cal who meets them their depending on how they finish...USC has a pretty easy schedule from here on out anyways...and i dont think that this is the year that they make back to the title game...so im going to say LSU and Cal (maybe)...but definately LSU...besides the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation...

 

I don't think you follow college football very closely. There is generally a big game every week, with more good non-conference match-ups than I can remember in previous seasons, probably in part due to the BCS system.

Week 1: UT-Cal, Oklahoma State-Georgia, KSU-Auburn
Week 2: VT-LSU, Miami-Oklahoma, TCU-Texas, Nebraska-WFU, South Florida-Auburn, Boise State-Washington, Oregon-Michigan
Week 3: WVU-Maryland, USC-Nebraska, Louisville-Kentucky
Week 4: TAMU-Miami, Maryland-Rutgers, Alabama-FSU

And that's not even counting any conference games. Some teams still schedule just cupcakes, but there are fewer and fewer. Relatively few elite teams have much "filler" on their schedule.

Perhaps in raw numbers, I don't know, although it would make sense given that the schedule is so much larger. But in terms of the percentage of challenge games to the total number of games, football is far superior.

Again, you're flat out wrong. See above for just the premier non-conference match-ups. There are plenty more that I didn't list because they didn't involve top 25 teams.

You would be wrong. The chances of any one team emerging from a single elimination tournament with that many rounds would be small, and with little to differentiate between teams.

 

No they aren't. Their offense is unquestionably worse, but you forget how young their defense was last season. This year they can stop anyone, it's just a question of whether or not the offense can keep up.

Yes, they did. He was their leading rusher in that game. I'm surprised you didn't know that considering you're supposedly such a big Georgia fan, or have you changed to LSU now?

Yes, because they played 3 solid non-conference opponents and lost all three games, plus the one to a better Fresno State team. Meanwhile last season they played only one worthwhile non-conference game against a solid Oregon State team.

No, Oklahoma had a huge advantage in yardage before that last Boise State drive in regulation. The Broncos were only in the game because of their trick plays and OU's turnovers (one of which was returned for a TD).

Not without a decent schedule, they don't. Non-BCS teams can schedule tough opponents, as Boise State did in 2005, but they lost those games. They didn't schedule anyone worth a damn in 2006 except Oregon State, who wasn't even ranked.

No. Florida played an exceptional game that night and would have destroyed Boise State even more thoroughly, as they weren't remotely as talented as Ohio State. The Buckeyes were not a bad team by any means, UF just put on an incredible performance.

Nothing is holding college football back. College football is the best sport bar none, and is more popular than it has ever been.