Interesting Editorial Re: Boise And The Bcs

[SilverEagle]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/16373267.htm

[EagleD]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

GO MEAN GREEN !!!!!!!!!

[UNTflyer]

What Patterson would like to see is an automatic BCS invitation for at least one team from the current non-BCS leagues. If necessary, let the two highest ranked non-BCS-league teams meet in a one-game, early December playoff.

I don't like this. Really, the best solution is to let all the Div-I conference champs play it out on the field in a 12-team playoff system, and the other decent teams can play traditional bowl games.

[emmitt01]

What Patterson would like to see is an automatic BCS invitation for at least one team from the current non-BCS leagues. If necessary, let the two highest ranked non-BCS-league teams meet in a one-game, early December playoff.

I don't like this. Really, the best solution is to let all the Div-I conference champs play it out on the field in a 12-team playoff system, and the other decent teams can play traditional bowl games.

I'd go one better. All of the conference champs (11 teams, the indy's don't get an auto bid) plus the 5 most highly ranked teams that didn't win their conference. 16 team field seeded based on strength of schedule.

[greenminer]

I don't like this. Really, the best solution is to let all the Div-I conference champs play it out on the field in a 12-team playoff system, and the other decent teams can play traditional bowl games.

not really, but a step closer.

-gm

[meangreendork]

More signs that the big BCS really isn't about what schools are better or what teams are better...it's who is expected to be better. And that expectation only comes from idiots in the media world such as our dear [fat] ball of hate here in our own DFW area.

[FirefightnRick]

Boise State is just what BCS fearedBy Gil LeBreton

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

A trick play might have won the Fiesta Bowl on Monday night.

But the mighty Oklahoma Sooners were beaten by something simpler, less sinister than that:

Parity.

No conference -- nor group of conferences -- has a monopoly on all the good teams. Or all of the best players.

"I wasn't surprised," said a man who ought to know.

TCU head coach Gary Patterson knows firsthand the kind of football program that the Boise State Broncos have. A year ago, had the Bowl Championship Series not still been such a greedy and shameless cartel, that could have been the 11-1 Horned Frogs, slipping convincingly into the Cinderella slippers.

But, no, this isn't a call for another public flogging of the BCS. Nor do I consider Boise State's 43-42 overtime victory a sudden mandate for staging a college football playoff.

Instead, the lesson learned from Monday night should be about attitudes. Changing attitudes.

On the Fox postgame show, Boise running back Ian Johnson was asked whether he thought the Oklahoma players took the Broncos lightly.

"We know they did," Johnson answered, without hesitation. "The way they were talking about us the whole entire game. The way they were talking to us when they were down.

"The whole entire week they acted like they felt we were their little brothers."

Exactly. And that's the arrogant attitude that the BCS -- and the school presidents who have endorsed it -- have allowed to develop.

The pregame show on Fox was a preview of the Neanderthal commentary that was to come. It featured the seemingly embalmed remains of what was once a pretty good college football coach, Barry Switzer, and the coiffured ramblings of Jimmy Johnson.

I'm paraphrasing here, but Johnson at one point shrugged and said, "Look, fellas, we all know that Oklahoma should win because it has all the better players, and it always will."

Switzer, ever the village idiot, tried to compare the upcoming game to a Rocky movie. Barring a Hollywood intervention, he was suggesting, Boise State had no chance.

"I know for a fact that Oklahoma didn't recruit any of those players that are on the Boise roster," Switzer said.

What arrogance! Like, Oklahoma is the official arbiter of who's worthy of a college football scholarship?

Switzer needs to be reminded that the Sooners didn't even try to recruit a kid from Waco named LaDainian Tomlinson. Nor did Oklahoma offer a scholarship to a Texan named Aaron Schobel, who will be going to the Pro Bowl soon, by way of TCU.

This notion of the non-BCS conferences being the wrong side of the college football tracks must be stopped. The "BCS" designation identifies the leagues and schools who have banded together to horde a disproportionate share of the TV bowl money.

It has unfairly been extrapolated to label college football's haves and have-nots.

Texas' Mack Brown had the gall not to even vote for 11-2 TCU on his final coaches poll ballot. Brown had undefeated Boise State ranked 12th.

For the record, Oklahoma's Bob Stoops voted Boise State 10th. Stoops also did not vote for TCU, which is curious because Stoops, of all people, should remember how he was outcoached and his team outplayed -- in Norman, Okla. -- by the Frogs in September, 2005.

My point isn't that the Mountain West or Western Athletic conferences are just as good, top to bottom, as the Big 12 and Pac-10. They're not. But that doesn't mean that TCU's 10 regular-season victories shouldn't count.

When they were in the same conference, before the Frogs went west and the Cardinals jumped to the Big East, TCU defeated Louisville three out of four seasons.

Each season there are going to be outstanding teams and weak teams -- Oklahomas and Iowa States -- in every conference. The best of them, no matter which league they hail from, are likely to be highly competitive, if invited to a BCS bowl.

If there was a lesson to be learned from Boise State on Monday, that should be it.

The current thinking in college football isn't unlike the NFL's attitude toward the AFL in the mid-1960s. All AFL teams were inferior to most NFL teams, the established league said, until Joe Namath and the Jets, Chiefs and Raiders pulled back the NFL's curtain.

"What happened Monday night," Patterson said, "was probably the worst fear of the top 50 schools in the country."

As we have been reminded night after night during this bowl season, there is more than one way to build a successful college football program. Not all of the best teams have to have running backs from Florida, or quarterbacks from Texas, or receivers from California.

Boise State, by the way, has two players on its roster from Texas and none from Oklahoma.

What Patterson would like to see is an automatic BCS invitation for at least one team from the current non-BCS leagues. If necessary, let the two highest ranked non-BCS-league teams meet in a one-game, early December playoff.

The "fear" that Patterson was talking about alludes to the arrogant schools' and conferences' notions that if they just ignore schools like Boise State, BYU and TCU, they'll go away.

Hopefully, the lesson learned at the Fiesta Bowl is that there are college football teams that are good enough, but are being systematically and categorically excluded, not only from bowl games but also from polls and scheduling.

It's wrong. And it's time that the Bob Stoopses and Mack Browns -- and their fans -- change their attitudes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gil LeBreton, 817-390-7760 glebreton@star-telegram.com

[greenminer]

I'd go one better. All of the conference champs (11 teams, the indy's don't get an auto bid) plus the 5 most highly ranked teams that didn't win their conference. 16 team field seeded based on strength of schedule.

This is the best proposal I've seen so far:

RULES

---All eleven conference champions get bid.

---Next 13 highest BCS ranked schools get bid, total of 24.

---Highest 8 seeds get first round bye.

---Seeds 9-24 begin First round action at higher seed's home field on second Saturday of December.

---Sweet 16 would play on third Saturday of December, once again at higher seed's home field.

---Elite 8 would play Christmas weekend. This would begin use of "BCS" bowls, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange.

---Final-Four would be New Year's weekend, once again at 2 of the 4 "BCS" bowl sites.

---National Championship game would be, once again at 1 of the "BCS" bowl sites. Instead of 4+1, it would be 4+2+1.

FIRST-ROUND MATCHUPS

#24 TROY at #9 AUBURN

#23 OHIO at #10 OKLAHOMA

#22 HOUSTON at #11 NOTRE DAME

#21 TEXAS A&M at #12 ARKANSAS

#20 BYU at #13 WEST VIRGINIA

#19 TEXAS at #14 WAKE FOREST

#18 CALIFORNIA at #15 VIRGINIA TECH

#17 TENNESSEE at #16 RUTGERS

SWEET 16

(Rutgers/Tenn winner) at #1 OHIO STATE

(Va Tech/Cal winner) at #2 FLORIDA

(Wake Forest/Texas winner) at #3 MICHIGAN

(West Virginia/BYU winner) at #4 LSU

(Arkansas/Texas A&M winner) at #5 USC

(Notre Dame/Houston winner) at #6 LOUISVILLE

(Oklahoma/Ohio winner) at #7 WISCONSIN

(Auburn/Troy winner) at #8 BOISE STATE

SUMMARY

---This system would allow almost all of the other bowl games outside of the "BCS" bowls to still serve a purpose, and for schools not making the tourney to still have a post-season.

---This playoff should be conducted at a time that does not interfere with the NFL playoffs, which is why I chose the dates I did.

---The "home game" format is necessary to involve as many teams as I did. It is similar to the 1-AA model. The reward of another home game has many benefits, financial or otherwise.

---In order for the major conferences to buy into a playoff, it would have to be seen as almost "rigged" in their favor. I believe first round byes, home field advantage, and multiple at-larges from each major conference, all based on strength of individual schools, is key to getting this passed.

---I also believe that this system would lead to an end to 12 team conferences. Conference championship games would become unnecessary and VERY damaging to the loser. If there is no championship game, what is the need for 12 team conferences?

---This plan woul lead to VERY stable, compact, regional conferences that made sense. This playoff would generate money that would put the basketball tourney to shame. Finally, it would crown a National Champion that was decided by the players and coaches on the field.

I find Troy to be the curious point in this setup. Take a look at their path: they face Auburn and then (if they won) would play Boise State. I know Troy would be a million to 1 shot of winning it all, but after they way they handled Florida State, and then Rice in the NO Bowl...who knows how far, right? I know in an identical 12 game schedule Auburn would have a better record; but with a few weeks to rest and prepare for the first round, I think the playing field levels out a bit. You certainly can't argue against that after Boise's win the other night.

-gm

Edited January 3, 2007 by greenminer

[Smitty]

More signs that the big BCS really isn't about what schools are better or what teams are better...it's who is expected to be better. And that expectation only comes from idiots in the media world such as our dear [fat] ball of hate here in our own DFW area.

No, those expectations also come from the BCS schools.

That Mack Brown and Bob Stoopes did not vote for TCU, and voted Boise 12th and 10th? That's either whistling through the graveyard or arrogant ignorance. Yes, the media has more than its share of arrogance, but that attitude is also knee-deep among BCS coaches, ADs, and presidents. The the biggest road-block to a playoff and to allowing participation by the non-BCS schools is the greedy BCS jerks who want to keep everything for themselves.

[meangreendork]

"This plan woul lead to VERY stable, compact, regional conferences that made sense. This playoff would generate money that would put the basketball tourney to shame. Finally, it would crown a National Champion that was decided by the players and coaches on the field."

As it should be and should have always been. There's no reason an objective sport like football should have its champion decided by computers and subjective, human (and therefore flawed) opinion.

[UNTflyer]

Conference championship games would become unnecessary and VERY damaging to the loser. If there is no championship game, what is the need for 12 team conferences?

Why? If you are going to give the conference champs an automatic bid, why not have a conference championship? It would essentially be the firstround of a playoff system.

[LongJim]

I'm all for a playoff, and I agree, it's all about the most money for the BCS schools, and needs to be changed.

But it's interesting how two schools in this area bear the brunt of his remarks, re: votes for TCU.

Here are a few others who didn't vote for TCU in the final poll:

Amato, Bellotti, Tommy Bowden, Watson Brown, John Bunting, Bill Callahan, Lloyd Carr, Larry Coker, Syl Croom, Pat Hill, Hoepiner, Kelly (Central Michigan-MAC), Houston Nutt, O'Leary at UCF-(CUSA), Mark Richt...

And Patterson voted Boise 10th. The same as Stoops.

[Eagle1855]

And Patterson voted Boise 10th. The same as Stoops.

well, just goes to show there are 2 ways to tell every story...

but for the most part, I think the article was pretty well-written, couldn't have said it better myself

[LongJim]

well, just goes to show there are 2 ways to tell every story...

but for the most part, I think the article was pretty well-written, couldn't have said it better myself

No, I agree. Well written article, and he's right on, IMO.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

What Patterson would like to see is an automatic BCS invitation for at least one team from the current non-BCS leagues. If necessary, let the two highest ranked non-BCS-league teams meet in a one-game, early December playoff.

I don't like this. Really, the best solution is to let all the Div-I conference champs play it out on the field in a 12-team playoff system, and the other decent teams can play traditional bowl games.

---What you are proposing is pretty much what NCAA basketball once was. It was 24 teams with 16 playing a first round, with the "best" 8 getting a bye.

---I agree very much with you... I would like to have a 12-team playoff (4 start with a bye) with at least 9 conferences represented and no conference would have more than two members in the playoff [ Basketball once did that when they went to 32 teams ] . The Holiday bowl system could still exist but would pick teams not involved in the 12 team playoff system. After trying this then consider going to a maximum 16 teams. ( both would take 4 weeks to complete )

---I wonder if Stoops still thinks he played the #10 team (Boise State )?? ...LOL... Guess OU isn't a top 10 then.

---These BCS coaches really need to wake up and look at the NFL players some. ( some of the media needs too also ). There are lots of outstanding NFL players that did not play on BCS teams and some are even QBs, WRs, and RBs. That should tell them something (if they can think at all).

[yyz28]

DeMarcus Ware, anyone?

[Quoner]

This is the best proposal I've seen so far:

I find Troy to be the curious point in this setup. Take a look at their path: they face Auburn and then (if they won) would play Boise State. I know Troy would be a million to 1 shot of winning it all, but after they way they handled Florida State, and then Rice in the NO Bowl...who knows how far, right? I know in an identical 12 game schedule Auburn would have a better record; but with a few weeks to rest and prepare for the first round, I think the playing field levels out a bit. You certainly can't argue against that after Boise's win the other night.

-gm

Thought about this proposal for awhile and shared it with a few friends (this response I am posting is from a non-UNT fan - the dig at getting lucky is just to piss me off.) He makes a few good points though:

At first glance, this seems like a decent plan until you realize that it fails to take into account the two most important factors in college football - money and politics.

A few thoughts:

I suppose the first-round bye is seen as a good option because the NFL uses it, but it basically represents "lost" revenue. I think I'm willing to believe that a convincing argument could be made for it, but I don't know. There's a fairly good chance that "mid-major" conferences would never collect any revenue.

Who pays for all of the travel? I know that doesn't seem like it should be a huge deal, but could UNT really afford the extra road trips if they happened to get lucky one year? I guess this could be resolved by splitting the gate, but I'm not sure. I would need more economic data to assess this issue.

Are all of the teams seeded by BCS ranking, or do the conference champs get preference? There are potential problems with each.

More so than with other sports, the unpredictable travel plans may be difficult to prepare for - both for the teams and for the fans. I wonder why this isn't brought up more with playoff proposals. Maybe this could be resolved with some type of regional seeding - like in basketball.

There is at least one thing that I think needs to occur to help facilitate a playoff system - maybe two. The first one - and possibly the easier - is to involve the NCAA in scheduling. This would help to make sure that the BCS rankings are more meaningful. Notre Dame, for instance, could easily structure a schedule that would ensure they made the tournament every year.

The second step would be harder to convince people of - radical restructuring of conference. The restructuring could take into account regional and historical factors. Each of the "major" conferences could have a team knocked out of the tournament by a team that didn't even finish in the the Top 25.

I amused by the thought that the "rest" of the bowls would still serve a purpose - what would that purpose be? I envision two options:

80 teams play postseason games - 24 in the tournament, and 56 in other bowl games - which amounts to 67% of the teams. This year, that would have required that just about every team with more than 4 wins would have made the postseason.

Teams eliminated in the tournament are eligible for the "other" bowls. I can't even list all the reasons that this is absurd.

Regardless of which option is employed - I see the demise of every bowl not involved in the tournament. People complain about the over saturation of bowls right now - this would be that times 10. Nobody would watch...bowls would lose television...bowls would collapse.

Consider this: the NFL playoffs start this weekend. Are you interested in watching the Cardinals and the Redskins play next Wednesday night?

I am also amused that this format would utilize seven games for four sites, meaning that each year one of the bowls sites would get only one game. I'm not sure they would agree to that. A possible solution would be to elevate some other bowls to this level. Of course, that would result in reduced revenue for the existing BCS bowls. I don't doubt there's a feasible solution, but it's not quite as simple as this proposal would suggest.

What about Notre Dame? Do you force them to join a conference? Do they get any kind of automatic berth? Part of me says no, that if you remain an independent you do so at your own risk. On the other hand, a bad Notre Dame team is probably a better draw than a good Troy team.

I don't think a College Football tournament needs to have more than 16 teams. Make it meaningful to win your conference. I kind of like the idea of 5 "wild card" teams. Another possibility would be realigning into 16 conferences of 8 teams. The problem here is that nonconference games would either have to be counted for conference standings or they would really only matter for seeding purposes. Maybe my favorite would be twelve essentially equal-sized conferences with 4 "wild card" teams.

[stebo]

The thing is - the bowl payout system is just entirely too f-ed up. Did you guys know that North Texas is going to make a lot more money from football this year then any of our other bowl seasons? We got a check for $235K because Boise made it to the BCS bowl game, if they had not - that check would have been about $117K. Either way, take Troy or MTSU as an example - they both had great seasons, made a trip to a bowl game, one lost- one won... they both will come out of those games with less money then North Texas did for not even going. The current system pays programs to lose. I am not advocating that all bowl games have $14 million dollar payouts but if we are truly all BCS schools now (that is what it says on paper, yes - even the Sun Belt is a BCS conference member, we just don't have an automatic bid like the Big 6 Conferences do)... but if we are all members of the BCS, then all of our bowl games should be "BCS" and the contract should be worked as such. If FOX wants to play the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose, and Championship games - then they need to distribute into all games so that each team gets to (at the minimum) break even when they make a bowl game. I am not throwing up any type of socialism here - in fact, it is the exact opposite - Capitalism. If a network wants the BCS games on their stations bad enough, they can cover some of the other games and distribute some actual television rights money for those teams playing in them. I seriously doubt that ESPN pays the New Orleans Bowl rights to show the game, we are just happy to be on a National Broadcast.

[Got5onIt]

Thought about this proposal for awhile and shared it with a few friends (this response I am posting is from a non-UNT fan - the dig at getting lucky is just to piss me off.) He makes a few good points though:

At first glance, this seems like a decent plan until you realize that it fails to take into account the two most important factors in college football - money and politics.

A few thoughts:

I suppose the first-round bye is seen as a good option because the NFL uses it, but it basically represents "lost" revenue. I think I'm willing to believe that a convincing argument could be made for it, but I don't know. There's a fairly good chance that "mid-major" conferences would never collect any revenue.

Who pays for all of the travel? I know that doesn't seem like it should be a huge deal, but could UNT really afford the extra road trips if they happened to get lucky one year? I guess this could be resolved by splitting the gate, but I'm not sure. I would need more economic data to assess this issue.

Are all of the teams seeded by BCS ranking, or do the conference champs get preference? There are potential problems with each.

More so than with other sports, the unpredictable travel plans may be difficult to prepare for - both for the teams and for the fans. I wonder why this isn't brought up more with playoff proposals. Maybe this could be resolved with some type of regional seeding - like in basketball.

There is at least one thing that I think needs to occur to help facilitate a playoff system - maybe two. The first one - and possibly the easier - is to involve the NCAA in scheduling. This would help to make sure that the BCS rankings are more meaningful. Notre Dame, for instance, could easily structure a schedule that would ensure they made the tournament every year.

The second step would be harder to convince people of - radical restructuring of conference. The restructuring could take into account regional and historical factors. Each of the "major" conferences could have a team knocked out of the tournament by a team that didn't even finish in the the Top 25.

I amused by the thought that the "rest" of the bowls would still serve a purpose - what would that purpose be? I envision two options:

80 teams play postseason games - 24 in the tournament, and 56 in other bowl games - which amounts to 67% of the teams. This year, that would have required that just about every team with more than 4 wins would have made the postseason.

Teams eliminated in the tournament are eligible for the "other" bowls. I can't even list all the reasons that this is absurd.

Regardless of which option is employed - I see the demise of every bowl not involved in the tournament. People complain about the over saturation of bowls right now - this would be that times 10. Nobody would watch...bowls would lose television...bowls would collapse.

Consider this: the NFL playoffs start this weekend. Are you interested in watching the Cardinals and the Redskins play next Wednesday night?

I am also amused that this format would utilize seven games for four sites, meaning that each year one of the bowls sites would get only one game. I'm not sure they would agree to that. A possible solution would be to elevate some other bowls to this level. Of course, that would result in reduced revenue for the existing BCS bowls. I don't doubt there's a feasible solution, but it's not quite as simple as this proposal would suggest.

What about Notre Dame? Do you force them to join a conference? Do they get any kind of automatic berth? Part of me says no, that if you remain an independent you do so at your own risk. On the other hand, a bad Notre Dame team is probably a better draw than a good Troy team.

I don't think a College Football tournament needs to have more than 16 teams. Make it meaningful to win your conference. I kind of like the idea of 5 "wild card" teams. Another possibility would be realigning into 16 conferences of 8 teams. The problem here is that nonconference games would either have to be counted for conference standings or they would really only matter for seeding purposes. Maybe my favorite would be twelve essentially equal-sized conferences with 4 "wild card" teams.

These are definitely good points, but I think this person is underestimating college football fans. Attendance, IMO, would go through the roof if a playoff system was implemented. If your school received a playoff bid, said university has a LEGITIMATE shot at the National Championship. A first round game for Directional U means so much more than the 2000 Flushes Toilet Bowl. Regional seeding would also help.

It's naive to think talent is equal across the board among conferences, 'cause it isn't. But, giving the Boise St.'s of the world a legitimate a shot would benefit college football in unimaginable ways.

A playoff system using conference champions for the "Big" guys, National Rankings for wildcard teams, and 1 gauranteed spot for the mid majors is the only way to go. This gauranteed spot can be determined through a mini playoff in which the small schools can face off in a sort of "play in" game, similar to what occurs in NCAA Basketball.

[greenminer]

The thing is - the bowl payout system is just entirely too f-ed up. Did you guys know that North Texas is going to make a lot more money from football this year then any of our other bowl seasons? We got a check for $235K because Boise made it to the BCS bowl game, if they had not - that check would have been about $117K. Either way, take Troy or MTSU as an example - they both had great seasons, made a trip to a bowl game, one lost- one won... they both will come out of those games with less money then North Texas did for not even going. The current system pays programs to lose. I am not advocating that all bowl games have $14 million dollar payouts but if we are truly all BCS schools now (that is what it says on paper, yes - even the Sun Belt is a BCS conference member, we just don't have an automatic bid like the Big 6 Conferences do)... but if we are all members of the BCS, then all of our bowl games should be "BCS" and the contract should be worked as such. If FOX wants to play the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose, and Championship games - then they need to distribute into all games so that each team gets to (at the minimum) break even when they make a bowl game. I am not throwing up any type of socialism here - in fact, it is the exact opposite - Capitalism. If a network wants the BCS games on their stations bad enough, they can cover some of the other games and distribute some actual television rights money for those teams playing in them. I seriously doubt that ESPN pays the New Orleans Bowl rights to show the game, we are just happy to be on a National Broadcast.

I read an old USAToday or CNN article about that a few weeks ago. How is that? I though the money was distributed among fellow conference members, so how do we get part of the cut?

-gm

[NTPhiKap99]

The point of a playoff is to get the best teams playing for a national championship so I vote no automatic bids for conference champions. They need a requirement similar to what they use for current non BCS teams. Win your conference and finish in the top 12(if an 8 team playoff stick with it). For the purpose of a playoff you can say finish atleast in the top 25 even since from year to year every conference wouldn't belong in a playoff and too many better teams would be left out. With these standards and desent conference champion would still make the playoffs and would help insure the #10 team in the nation isn't left out for an unranked team from a lesser conference. Understand this is hard to say for a North Texas fan but noone can honestly say we deserved a shot at the National Title after winning the Sunbelt at 5-6, 7-5, 9-3(maybe), and 7-4. If there is to be a playoff the best teams have to be there most of those will be from the big conferences but if the was used this year with a 16 team playoff you would have using BCS rankings.

Ohio State v. BYU

Florida v. Virgina Tech

Michigan v. Wake Forest

LSU v. West Virginia

USC v. Arkansas

Louisville v. Notre Dame

Wisconsin v. Oklahoma

Boise State v. Auburn

Big 10 - 3 teams

Big 12 - 1

SEC - 4

ACC - 2

PAC 10 - 1

Big East - 2

CUSA - 0 Houston 8-3

WAC - 1

M. West - 1

MAC - 0 Central Michigan 9-4

SunBelt - 0 Troy 7-5

Indep - 1

As you see only one 3 lose team gets in the big confereces are well represented and no undeserving teams get in automatically.

[Cr1028]

The point of a playoff is to get the best teams playing for a national championship so I vote no automatic bids for conference champions. They need a requirement similar to what they use for current non BCS teams. Win your conference and finish in the top 12(if an 8 team playoff stick with it). For the purpose of a playoff you can say finish atleast in the top 25 even since from year to year every conference wouldn't belong in a playoff and too many better teams would be left out. With these standards and desent conference champion would still make the playoffs and would help insure the #10 team in the nation isn't left out for an unranked team from a lesser conference. Understand this is hard to say for a North Texas fan but noone can honestly say we deserved a shot at the National Title after winning the Sunbelt at 5-6, 7-5, 9-3(maybe), and 7-4. If there is to be a playoff the best teams have to be there most of those will be from the big conferences but if the was used this year with a 16 team playoff you would have using BCS rankings.

Ohio State v. BYU

Florida v. Virgina Tech

Michigan v. Wake Forest

LSU v. West Virginia

USC v. Arkansas

Louisville v. Notre Dame

Wisconsin v. Oklahoma

Boise State v. Auburn

Big 10 - 3 teams

Big 12 - 1

SEC - 4

ACC - 2

PAC 10 - 1

Big East - 2

CUSA - 0 Houston 8-3

WAC - 1

M. West - 1

MAC - 0 Central Michigan 9-4

SunBelt - 0 Troy 7-5

Indep - 1

As you see only one 3 lose team gets in the big confereces are well represented and no undeserving teams get in automatically.

What about Hawaii and TCU?

[NTPhiKap99]

What about Hawaii and TCU?

Tell them to win their conference TCU lost to BYU who would be in and Hawaii lost to Boise St.

[FirefightnRick]

Favoring anything that rely's simply on rankings(top 25) will always be flawed putting us right back where we are now.

Rick

[NTPhiKap99]

Favoring anything that rely's simply on rankings(top 25) will always be flawed putting us right back where we are now.

Rick

I couldn't agree more but as long as there is college football there will be rankings. And unless we have all 119 teams play each other the polls will prevail. And as much as I hate the BCS a similar system of averaging different polls has to be the way to go making it harder for writers and coaches to individually change results by leaving a team out. Unfortunately there is no right answer and no matter what gets done someone will be left out and be left complaining.