The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I was wondering if anyone else besides me is anti college football playoff. The only way that I could possibly support a playoff is if it was a conditional playoff only used when more than 2 teams are undefeated. I think that if you go undefeated, unless you have played a ridiculously easy schedule, you probably deserve shot at the title. But if you lose even once, you have forfeited any right to complain because the season was in your control. I think that a system like this would be a pretty good compromise. It wouldn't destroy the regular season like everyone who supports a playoff wants, but it would give all truly deserving teams a shot. Any thoughts?

i think the college season needs to be 16 games, and the last 4 contengient on your recoed after 12, the best need to play the best at that point. i think that we need to see whos who, before anyone is named #1. there are just too many teams to name a fair schedule or ranking. but i don't think that just because you go undefeatd that you are a shoe in. the bcs is a big b and s without the c.

It was probably better when they didn't have the BCS. Both ways, they still had to occasionally split the National Championship, but at least now there isn't that obnoxious computer aspect about it.

If it were up to me, and most people are probably glad that it isn't, I wouldn't even have a national championship in college football. I'd just let them play out all of the different bowls, and let the organizers of the bowls invite whoever they want to and build up lots of tradition that way. Then, come the end of every year, just let whatever college that wins whatever bowl feel that they have accomplished as much as possible that season. Currently, because in practical terms there is no good way to organize playoffs or a huge tournament (between scheduling difficulties and the physicality of football as a sport), it just creates a contraversy every year. Who says that there has to be one definite national champion in college football, anyway?

The only way to have a fair system in college athletics is to have a tournament including all the teams. Just look at what happens if you have a 4 team playoff this year. If the season were to end today, obviously Auburn, OU, and USC are in. But who is the fourth team. Would it be undefeated Utah (who by the way plays in a conference in which the rest of the teams are a combined 30 wins and 40 losses, only getting to .500 with Utah's 10 wins)? What about undefeated Boise State? Wouldn't 1 loss teams from BCS conferences such as Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Cal have a legitimate complaint?

So then create an 8 team playoff, and further destroy any meaning that the regular season has. Auburn, OU, USC, Utah, and Boise State would all be in. But one of the one loss BCS teams would be left out, not to mention 1 loss Louisville.

OK, then create a 16 team playoff. All ten undefeated and 1 loss teams are in. Then you have to choose the final 6 teams from 2 loss teams like FSU, Miami, Georgia, LSU, Virginia Tech, Tennessee, Iowa, Virginia, Boston College, West Virginia, Arizona State, Bowling Green, and UTEP.

Get the picture? Teams are always going to be left out, and expanding the playoff would only compound the problem because you would be enlarging the pool of candidates. Now, I would like to hear from some pro playoff people, why exactly, it would be OK to leave a one or two loss team out of a playoff but it is an outrage to leave them out of the BCS championship game? This is exactly why the media is so full of crap. These morally superior and "clear thinking" people get up on their soapbox and preach about the unfairness of the BCS, but does anyone think that they would whine about say a 1 loss Texas team getting left out of an 8 team playoff? It is hypocritical to complain about the unfairness of the BCS and ignore the unfairness of a playoff.

basically there are to many teams, to many conferences and not enough games to adequately crown a true champion. I say we contract teams that aren't performing, I.E. pennstate, notredame and Virginia Tech(just cause I hate them, go JMU!!!!)

How about we do like college basketball. The conference champions make the playoffs, and then have some at-large berths based on BCS. 16 team playoff. All games played on Saturdays in December, one round per week with the National Championship coming on New Years Day.

I'm in complete agreement with JansenFan on this one and I don't believe this system would "destroy" the meaning of the regular season. If such a system were adopted, I might actually start watching college football again.

A sixteen team playoff would kill the regular season. As it is now, teams cannot lose a game and count on being in the championship game. If there were a sixteen team playoff, then you would have 6 teams get in with two losses this year. Not to mention the fact that there would still be teams left out. I am still waiting on an answer as to why it is OK to leave teams out of a playoff, but not the BCS. Why is it that fairness is only extended to the inadequate. Isn't it inherently unfair that a team in college basketball could go undefeated through the regular season and still only be afforded the same opportunity to win the championship as the 64th best team? And if you don't like college football, stick to watching the big homogenous turd, otherwise known as the NFL, and leave the only decent sport in the world alone.

The point is, how can you call team A the champs, when they didn't have to necessarily go through teams B, C, and D to get there, but merely had to beat team E?

It's not OK to leave anyone out. At least with a 16 team playoff, 16 teams will get a shot. Also, with my plan, every conference regardless of their strength of schedule gets a shot. That Utah or BYU has just as much of a chance to win the championship as Oklahoma or USC.

Why have an NCAA national champion at all in football? The earth spun regularly during the (long) time when the "polls" chose the college rankings. No great harm came to The Republic.

These are, theoretically, college students playing the sport. They should be in class learning something. They are, by common agreement or mutually agreed deception, amateurs.

Who pays them to play the extra games?

I can see where TV networks have an interest in extending the college season. Is this in the interest of the "student athlete"?

(Quote from Warren Sapp, tackle for the semi-pro Miami Hurricanes, when this was suggested in the early '90s: "Who's going to pay us to play all these extra games?")

If you have a 16 team playoff you might as well eliminate the regular season and have all the teams play a tournament because the regular season is devalued. The important regular season is what makes college football special. Thats the reason you have classic #1 vs. #2 games. Does anyone remeber any regular season games from any other sport? College football has a history and a tradition as rich as baseball's, if not more so, and a big part of that is not having a playoff.

Could someone please answer this question. Why is it fair to make a team that goes undefeated have to play multiple teams with multiple losses? Just look back at 2002. Didn't Ohio State and Miami earn the right to play in the championship games on the basis of their regular seasons? They were the only two teams undefeated, and look what happened, they played one of the greatest games in college football history.