Will there ever be a playoff system in Division I-A college football?

**James Steele** · 01-02-2007, 05:25 AM

Pretty simple really.

**loopydate** · 01-05-2007, 07:04 PM

No. There should, but there won't.

**Stickman** · 01-05-2007, 07:52 PM

No cuz they're idiots

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 01-06-2007, 03:04 AM

Never, for a lot of reasons but they all relate back to money

**Gonzo** · 01-06-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTiMa34

Never, for a lot of reasons but they all relate back to money

Was pretty much going to be my exact response. There is far too much money for companies to make with the current Bowl system that they would never go to a playoff format.

**BCWWF** · 01-06-2007, 07:21 PM

Well, I would argue (as devils advocate) that you don't need to add a playoffs because 9 times of out 10 the BCS national championship has the two top teams in the nation. When there is a controversy, it usually solves itself (see Michigan losing).

So yeah, a playoff would be cool, but I don't think there is really a problem in that undeserving teams have been winning the national championship.

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 01-06-2007, 11:18 PM

If they don't do it in football then they shouldn't have it in any other sport either then.

**BCWWF** · 01-07-2007, 03:45 AM

All sports are different. A football game is a huge event, partially in terms of setup and transportation, and partially on the toll of the athletes. For the NCAA to implement a playoff system that works, it would need to have 16 teams, which would mean that some college football teams would have one week off from the beginning of September until January.

I don't think that is the reason why there isn't a playoffs though, and personally I don't think that excuse alone would hold up. I think the reason there is not a playoffs is because football is so much different than any other sport. Basketball is set up for tournaments, because there is so much parity and the ability to play so many games in a little amount of time.

If there was a huge problem with the BCS always choosing the wrong teams, I think there would be actual outrage. Right now, when the main complaints are that Michigan didn't get a second chance to beat a team (and then lost to a worse team) and that a mid-major school went undefeated but doesn't have a chance to face the No. 1 team. I am not saying that Boise is undeserving of a chance to play Ohio State, but at the same time I don't think that is a strong argument. An undefeated mid-major school is as talented as Boise maybe once a decade, if even that, so how often is that an excuse? Even with Auburn a few years back, I think it was pretty much accepted by most of America that USC/OU were No. 1 and No. 2 going into that game.

Just to make it clear what I actually think, since a lot of this is me playing devils advocate...I think the right playoff system would be really cool (which I have outlined in the other thread), but at this point, I think the
bowl system works for a few reasons. I think it is shitty that some of the bowls are shitty, but I also think that most of the bowls are good the the communities they are in, good for the middle of the road teams, and that except for a few instances, the national championship game is the top two teams in the nation at the time.

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 01-07-2007, 01:16 PM

How was OU the accepted #2 in the nation when they just got smoked by Kansas State and Auburn ran the table in the SEC?

**BCWWF** · 01-07-2007, 01:20 PM

Because at the end of the day, 90 percent of American's outside of Alabama would agree that USC/OU was the top two teams, and that USC was the top team in the nation.

Instead of having the "mythical" national champion, a playoff system is just designed to get rid of some uncertainty, but really, I think the BCS championship is usually pretty certain.

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 01-07-2007, 01:29 PM

Are you sure about that 90%? I'm about as far as you get from Alabama in America and a lot of people here felt that Auburn was getting screwed. I don't think anyone really thought Oklahoma was better then Auburn after getting romped by Kansas State - I think it was more like 90% of American thought Auburn was better to tell you the truth. Plus BCS failed when USC was named a co-National Champion since that was the point of the BCS - to eliminate co-Champions. How long has the BSC been around for? 8 years? Already failed more then a few times...that doesn't seem like a very good average to me.

I also don't think its right since who has Boise State lost to this year? noone - and you say "every 10 years" I dunno about that either, Utah ran the table 2 years ago.

Who knows, maybe in a playoff Florida would end up againest Ohio State - but I'd rather find out on the field then in the polls. What it comes down to is big time conferences, with big time schools making the big time money don't want to lose out on that. I don't want to hear about the "wear and tear" or any of that because 1AA football players can get through it, I am sure D1 players can too.

View Poll Results: Will there ever be a playoff system in college football?
Yes	2	20.00%
No	8	80.00%
Voters: 10. You must log in or register to vote on this poll.

01-05-2007, 07:04 PM	#2
loopydate FIT Challenge Slag People Posts: 13,816	No. There should, but there won't.

01-05-2007, 07:52 PM	#3
Stickman Stickman Posts: 15,119	No cuz they're idiots

01-06-2007, 03:04 AM	#4
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	Never, for a lot of reasons but they all relate back to money

01-06-2007, 07:21 PM	#6
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	Well, I would argue (as devils advocate) that you don't need to add a playoffs because 9 times of out 10 the BCS national championship has the two top teams in the nation. When there is a controversy, it usually solves itself (see Michigan losing). So yeah, a playoff would be cool, but I don't think there is really a problem in that undeserving teams have been winning the national championship.

01-06-2007, 11:18 PM	#7
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	If they don't do it in football then they shouldn't have it in any other sport either then.

01-07-2007, 03:45 AM	#8
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	All sports are different. A football game is a huge event, partially in terms of setup and transportation, and partially on the toll of the athletes. For the NCAA to implement a playoff system that works, it would need to have 16 teams, which would mean that some college football teams would have one week off from the beginning of September until January. I don't think that is the reason why there isn't a playoffs though, and personally I don't think that excuse alone would hold up. I think the reason there is not a playoffs is because football is so much different than any other sport. Basketball is set up for tournaments, because there is so much parity and the ability to play so many games in a little amount of time. If there was a huge problem with the BCS always choosing the wrong teams, I think there would be actual outrage. Right now, when the main complaints are that Michigan didn't get a second chance to beat a team (and then lost to a worse team) and that a mid-major school went undefeated but doesn't have a chance to face the No. 1 team. I am not saying that Boise is undeserving of a chance to play Ohio State, but at the same time I don't think that is a strong argument. An undefeated mid-major school is as talented as Boise maybe once a decade, if even that, so how often is that an excuse? Even with Auburn a few years back, I think it was pretty much accepted by most of America that USC/OU were No. 1 and No. 2 going into that game. Just to make it clear what I actually think, since a lot of this is me playing devils advocate...I think the right playoff system would be really cool (which I have outlined in the other thread), but at this point, I think the bowl system works for a few reasons. I think it is shitty that some of the bowls are shitty, but I also think that most of the bowls are good the the communities they are in, good for the middle of the road teams, and that except for a few instances, the national championship game is the top two teams in the nation at the time.

01-07-2007, 01:16 PM	#9
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	How was OU the accepted #2 in the nation when they just got smoked by Kansas State and Auburn ran the table in the SEC?

01-07-2007, 01:20 PM	#10
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	Because at the end of the day, 90 percent of American's outside of Alabama would agree that USC/OU was the top two teams, and that USC was the top team in the nation. Instead of having the "mythical" national champion, a playoff system is just designed to get rid of some uncertainty, but really, I think the BCS championship is usually pretty certain.

01-07-2007, 01:29 PM	#11
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	Are you sure about that 90%? I'm about as far as you get from Alabama in America and a lot of people here felt that Auburn was getting screwed. I don't think anyone really thought Oklahoma was better then Auburn after getting romped by Kansas State - I think it was more like 90% of American thought Auburn was better to tell you the truth. Plus BCS failed when USC was named a co-National Champion since that was the point of the BCS - to eliminate co-Champions. How long has the BSC been around for? 8 years? Already failed more then a few times...that doesn't seem like a very good average to me. I also don't think its right since who has Boise State lost to this year? noone - and you say "every 10 years" I dunno about that either, Utah ran the table 2 years ago. Who knows, maybe in a playoff Florida would end up againest Ohio State - but I'd rather find out on the field then in the polls. What it comes down to is big time conferences, with big time schools making the big time money don't want to lose out on that. I don't want to hear about the "wear and tear" or any of that because 1AA football players can get through it, I am sure D1 players can too.