Man O Man Emperor Dan your Kelly Green you covered every base well with your argumentation here. Wa to go.
You have a lot of legitimate points, dan, but comparing the NFL to college football is about as silly as comparing major league baseball to college football. The NFL was created with a specific system in mind--there are divisions under two conferences with a specific number of teams, teams are chosen based on wins from those divisions to advance to a playoff. In college football you have 119+ teams, many conferences and some teams that maintain complete independence.
In point 6, you probably left out the most egregious BCS burn to date--Auburn in 2004. Everyone you have listed is realistically bullshit--surely you must realize that deep down. In my opinion, small schools that belong to small conferences need to schedule monster out of conference games to show they're legitimate. Who's to say that if we had an 8 team playoff, any of those teams you listed would make it to the top 8? Auburn going undefeated in 2004 (in the fucking SEC as well)and not being given any sort of chance to claim a national championship has been the only true BCS travesty to date.
Tommy, you're right to point out that the NFL isn't truly the same as college football, but I don't believe that detracts from the argument in favor of a playoff.
For one, the current NFL post-season format was not "created with a specific system in mind". Remember, the 6-team playoff, the current divisional lineup, even the Superbowl itself, are all ADAPTATIONS made many years after the NFL and its predecessors came into being. The league is a success because it recognized the need to adapt.
Point 6 was more about non-BCS conference teams and how the current system screws them royally. You can say that those undefeated teams were "bullshit" if you want. Then again, did you (or anyone) predict Boise State beating Oklahoma? Or, to take a more, let us say, satisfying, example: Appalachian State over Michigan? The point is, we can't simply write these teams off like in years past.
And yes, I'm sure Boise State and Hawaii and the like would love to schedule USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State and the like, but we all know that they'd be lucky to land even one marquee school per season as a non-BCS conference team. The present system punishes these teams through no fault of their own.
Nothing on white, yet?
An elegant solution from an ndnation post on how to solve BCS issues:
"I believe an unseeded plus-1 is the best solution. I have NO IDEA why the SEC pitched a seeded plus-1, which is nothing more than a 4-team playoff and puts us squarely on the slippery slope the Big Ten and Big East alluded to. That's the wrong idea, at least it is for now.
An unseeded plus-1 would return the bowl games to the way they were before the BCS, Alliance, and Coalition. B10 v P10 in Rose, SEC in Sugar, ACC in Orange, B12 in Fiesta and Cotton, etc. This would return the tradition of the New Year's Day extravaganza and maintain the traditional tie-ins many are concerned about.
AFTER the NYD games, a BCS-type formula would THEN determine the two top teams to meet a week later in the NC game.
-There would be no affect on the academic calender.
-ALL bowls would maintain, or even improve, their status as the two champion teams could theoretically come from any 1 of the top 6 bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Gator).
-The regular season would not lose any of its import, as you would still have to win your conference or have a great resume to make a major bowl and to get the #1 or #2 ranking in the final, post-bowl poll.
-Only two fanbases and student bodies would have to travel twice, and they would be travelling for the NC game so I'm sure it wouldn't be much of a problem.
-Teams like Ohio State could only schedule themselves into the bowl game, NOT the championship.
-While the "5th team" would still be crying, such angst would not be as concerning or credible as an undefeated Auburn team being left out of a championship.
Okay, that's my bar napkin plan. I know it wouldn't fix every problem, but I think it would greatly reduce them and somewhat mollify both camps.
Flame away."
I would say that this proposal is an improvement on the present system, and I'd take it in a heartbeat, but I still think we can do better.
It's still a playoff, but we'd have one additional game (against a non-patsy) to inform our decision of what teams are truly deserving of being ranked 1 and 2.
However, without seeding, the draw of team you play in the bowl game will matter greatly. For example, I doubt Jim Delaney and crew will be thrilled about having to go through USC every year to reach the title game. (Not that I have any sympathy for the bastard, mind you!)
Also, it's still very possible under this scenario to have 3 unbeaten teams from the major conferences, aka, the nightmare scenario.
Furthermore, so long as you have automatic and unqualified bids for the champions of the major conferences, you are setting yourself up for disaster. If the #1 and 2 teams must come from the major bowls, it takes potential spots away from others if some "champion" of the crappy ACC gets to walk into the Orange bowl at 8-4. I know, I know, we can't mess with tradition. I'm just saying, there needs to be some sort of minimum threshold for entry into a major bowl, aside from just being a major conference champ. What that metric should be, I'm not sure. I'm working on it for a future post.
And I'd just like to reiterate, for all these "slippery slope" people, we already have a playoff. If there's a slippery slope, we're on it. Get used to it.
Commenting by HaloScan
