The idea of having just #1 and #2 meet in the only BCS game is a nice neat clean solution to the AQ problem. Bidding out the championship site will be a great source of new revenue and that will be popular.

Here's the problem.

Money isn't everything. If it were we would have a playoff and would have had one for years.

Recruiting and fan perception is important as well.

Look at the BCS. If you get a second team in that is worth $6 million. Until last year it was worth $4 million. Until last year, there were seasons where playing in the Capital One Bowl paid more than playing as the second team into the BCS from the SEC or Big 10. You didn't see any schools hoping to be passed by the Sugar or Orange to get into the Capital One Bowl.

The BCS tag provides value in keeping fans happy about the performance of the team and value to coaches because of contract values (plus bonuses for making a BCS game) and it provides value in recruiting.

Since the 2003 season, only four conferences have played in the 1-2 game, the SEC, Big XII, Pac-10, and Big 10.

The ACC isn't likely to support the idea, outside the Orange their odds are based on a bowl needing a warm body. The Big East knows they are excluded from all the key bowl games if this adopted. The Pac-12 might be able to cut a deal for the Fiesta in addition to the Rose but that will be it. The key bowl games will flock toward Big 10 vs. SEC match-ups with the Big XII next choice. They could be in play for Fiesta and Sugar in addition to the near BCS dollars of the Cotton and the Orange would like to renew their relationship as well.

Only three leagues emerge as clear financial winners if the 1-2 game is the only BCS game. The SEC, Big 10 and Big XII. The Pac-12 is probably at best a wash and the ACC comes out worse.

The coaches in the SEC, Big 10, and Big XII will likely lobby against the 1-2 idea as long as the cap on teams is removed because they want the performance bonuses and they want the recruiting advantage.

Notre Dame would have to be hesitant about supporting 1-2 only because they likely end up denied access to the top bowls.

Any idea that improves the status quo without being a 1-2 only or a continuation of the straight AQ system is going to get support from the non-AQ. The non-AQ will be completely shut out of the top bowls if 1-2 only is adopted and their schedules will keep them out of 1-2 except in a bizzare situation like 1984 where BYU had finished #7 the year before then went undefeated in year with no other undefeated team and a record as poor as 8-4-1 warranted a #16 ranking and 7-3-2 warranted #17. Nearly 30 years later that scenario hasn't played out again.

In the end there will be some sort of compromise to keep the BCS.

The whole point of the BCS was to keep the bulk of the money going to the bix six conferences.

The last round of media deals has dwarfed the BCS money.

I think that the Big Ten and Pac 12 will be more open to postseason reform, be it a playoff or just a +1, now that they along with the ACC, B12 and SEC will be making far more money than the other conferences.

Who knows why this 'only control the 1 vs 2' scenario has been a hot topic; it was just one of many scenarios discussed.

(11-18-2011 01:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The idea of having just #1 and #2 meet in the only BCS game is a nice neat clean solution to the AQ problem. Bidding out the championship site will be a great source of new revenue and that will be popular.

Here's the problem.

Money isn't everything. If it were we would have a playoff and would have had one for years.

Recruiting and fan perception is important as well.

Look at the BCS. If you get a second team in that is worth $6 million. Until last year it was worth $4 million. Until last year, there were seasons where playing in the Capital One Bowl paid more than playing as the second team into the BCS from the SEC or Big 10. You didn't see any schools hoping to be passed by the Sugar or Orange to get into the Capital One Bowl.

The BCS tag provides value in keeping fans happy about the performance of the team and value to coaches because of contract values (plus bonuses for making a BCS game) and it provides value in recruiting.

Since the 2003 season, only four conferences have played in the 1-2 game, the SEC, Big XII, Pac-10, and Big 10.

The ACC isn't likely to support the idea, outside the Orange their odds are based on a bowl needing a warm body. The Big East knows they are excluded from all the key bowl games if this adopted. The Pac-12 might be able to cut a deal for the Fiesta in addition to the Rose but that will be it. The key bowl games will flock toward Big 10 vs. SEC match-ups with the Big XII next choice. They could be in play for Fiesta and Sugar in addition to the near BCS dollars of the Cotton and the Orange would like to renew their relationship as well.

Only three leagues emerge as clear financial winners if the 1-2 game is the only BCS game. The SEC, Big 10 and Big XII. The Pac-12 is probably at best a wash and the ACC comes out worse.

The coaches in the SEC, Big 10, and Big XII will likely lobby against the 1-2 idea as long as the cap on teams is removed because they want the performance bonuses and they want the recruiting advantage.

Notre Dame would have to be hesitant about supporting 1-2 only because they likely end up denied access to the top bowls.

Any idea that improves the status quo without being a 1-2 only or a continuation of the straight AQ system is going to get support from the non-AQ. The non-AQ will be completely shut out of the top bowls if 1-2 only is adopted and their schedules will keep them out of 1-2 except in a bizzare situation like 1984 where BYU had finished #7 the year before then went undefeated in year with no other undefeated team and a record as poor as 8-4-1 warranted a #16 ranking and 7-3-2 warranted #17. Nearly 30 years later that scenario hasn't played out again.

In the end there will be some sort of compromise to keep the BCS.

Interesting thoughts.

(11-18-2011 01:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The non-AQ will be completely shut out of the top bowls if 1-2 only is adopted and their schedules will keep them out of 1-2 except in a bizzare situation like 1984 where BYU had finished #7 the year before then went undefeated in year with no other undefeated team.......Nearly 30 years later that scenario hasn't played out again.

The thing people keep forgetting is all of this is that unless a situation such as the one you described with BYU, the schools from conferences other than the SEC, Big XII, Pac12 and Big 10 would not deserve a shot at a 1v2 matchup or a slot in one of the top bowls.

For example, USM did not have a great year last year and hasn't had a team regularly in the top 25 in years. Say they hadn't turned the ball over six times and lost by six to Marshall and hadn't laid such an egg losing by three to UAB. They would have had an opportunity to be 12-0, then 13-0 with a win in the CUSA title game. With that undefeated season, would they have established the bona fides to warrant consideration for a 1v2 game? I could see letting them play in a BCS bowl against a 3-4 loss conference champ, but not a national championship game. With all due respect to Houston (and I believe they will end up 13-0) or Boise State, I would take a 2-loss team from the SEC or Big XII (and to a lesser degree from the Pac12 or Big 10) before I would consider an unbeaten team from MWC, CUSA or even the Big East.

My point is that whether there is a BCS or not, a team still has to earn their way on the field. Winning all or mostly all of your games with a poor or marginal schedule doesn't compare with a team that wins all or most games against a gauntlet of seven or eight ranked teams. So any team that is non-AQ or even the Big East will always have to do more and for a longer period against stronger schedules to be considered worthy for a top bowl, much less the 1v2 game. That's why I have never cared whether my favorite non-AQ teams got an invite to an AQ conference as it relates to bowl games -- they still have to earn it on the field.

Contemplate that thought for a minute. What you do last year determines whether you can play for a national title this year. Even though 20% to 25% of the players from that squad are gone and replaced by 25 new players as well as 20 or so players who spent the prior year red-shirting.

If last year counts toward this year, maybe we should have a decade champion rather than yearly champion.

It's an odd little system we have where schools are dismissed from the title hunt because they play 2/3rds of their games against "lesser" schools because a "better" conference does not wish to include them in their club. These same schools get told that they get points deducted for their out-of-conference schedule but that too is limited by who will play them and the terms of the deal. Florida hasn't played a regular season non-conference game outside the state of Florida since 1991, is that a point deduction as well?

That off-topicness aside.

My point isn't that it is important for a Boise or Houston to play in the title game but rather that the title game will be the only major game available to them if the BCS walks away from everything except the 1-2 game. That will be the only so-called major bowl game available to the Big East as well.

The five non-AQ won't support that option nor will Big East or ACC because they end up worse off and arguably so does the Pac-12.

I don't think that the Big 10 will support a plus one concept unless years like this one become the rule rather than the exception. If the Big 10 finds it is becoming irrelevant (as it did after undefeated Penn State got shut-out of the the national title) it will take steps to correct the problem and if plus one is the fix, they will support it, but not until then.

My feeling is that we won't see this go through, either, although it will be interesting to see. I keep going back to where the Big Ten schools are ranked this year (#15 or lower) because it gets to the heart of the issue. Whether one wants to call it a tie-in or AQ status, there will be blizzards in hell before the Big Ten gives up a Rose Bowl slot because its champ was ranked too low in a given year. Getting 3 BCS bowl bids via a top 10 system (which would've happened last year for the Big Ten) isn't worth getting completely shut out in a year like this one. As I've stated before, it's clear that at least the Big Ten and Pac-12 see their Rose Bowl tie-ins as completely separate from AQ status, and you're almost certainly going to get the same view from the SEC with respect to the Sugar, the ACC with respect to the Orange and the Big 12 with respect to the Fiesta. To them, AQ status means the rules granting auto-bids to the top 4 in the BCS rankings, the top non-AQ team (provided that it's in the top 12), the Big East, and the Notre Dame (provided that it's in the top 8). From what I'm seeing, AQ status does NOT mean the elimination of their bowl tie-ins (regardless of where they might be ranked) in their eyes.

So, what exactly could be realistically changed? At least in the current system, the bowls and TV networks aren't really clamoring for top 10 teams, so some type of top 10 rule isn't really addressing their concerns. As much as some bowls might hate taking an unranked Big East school, they also don't want to be missing out on Nebraska/Florida/Texas-type teams that might be ranked lower than #10. They'd take third and fourth place SEC and Big Ten teams if they had the choice.

The only way that would provide a real incentive for the bowls and TV networks to value higher ranked teams as opposed to lower ranked teams that travel well is to have some type of plus-one system. If we can't even have a seeded 4-team playoff (much less 8 or 16-team playoffs - it's nice to think about but a complete fantasy), then a way to do this is to allow the bowls to maintain their traditional tie-ins plus something that largely matches the current at-large selection rules and then the two highest ranked teams that win their bowl games get to advance to the national championship game. That way, bowls will actually *want* last year's #3-ranked TCU as that makes their game have national title implications. It's not perfect, but perfection is an unattainable standard with the BCS minions we're dealing with. At the same time, you could have 3 or 4 (or even more) bowls that have national title implications again, which would drive up interest in those games overall.

I think the only real issue here is how will the money be split? Presumably, regardless of how the game access is structured, the BCS will still exist as a collective bargaining unit on the media rights deal. I mean that is, after all, what made the BCS system so much more lucrative than the preceding bowl system in the first place. So where will that television money go and how will it be divided? I'm having a very difficult time believing that everyone else is just going to let the B1G and SEC take all of the money and leave the scraps for everyone else.

Also, if you are a fan of a non-AQ team, you HAVE to be intelligent enough to understand that this is the WORST possible scenario that could possibly happen to you. It would harm the Big East and I have come to learn that to many of you harming the Big East is more important than improving your own position. However, if this goes back to bowls deciding everything, we are going to see say the Sugar Bowl take an 9-4 or 10-3 Wisconsin team taken over a 13-0 or 12-1 Southern Miss every single time. They'll explain, "Hey, this is a business and Wisconsin brings 40K fans so we basically had to take them over USM so that we could turn a profit." So all of those instances where schools like Boise State and TCU got to play in big games against name teams from respected leagues, they would all go by the wayside.

If this goes down as is being reported, it would represent a MAMMOTH step backwards for the entire process.

Congress needs to step in an do what the NCAA doesn't have the balls to do: fix college football. This new BCS plan is an obvious attempt to exclude more programs and create a smaller "haves". This issue screams for the government to revoke the tax exempt status of these money making endeavors known as conferences.

There was an outcry when news of the mismanagement of Fiesta Bowl funds came to light. When the government gets to poking around in the finances of The SEC, Big 12, PAC, Big 10, ACC and Big East it will make The Fiesta Bowl financial fiasco look like chicken feed.
CJ

The BCS was formed to match #1 against #2 not to concentrate power among the top schools.

The power conferences used to have exclusive relationships with all the prestigious bowls prior to the BCS. Frankly, I hate the new setup. I prefer the old system where the conferences have relationships with particular bowls. The best way to improve that is to arrange a BCS title game after the bowl games where the top 2 ranked teams play in mid-January or something. Play all the bowls on January 1. Have the bowls select who they want. The Rose would get the PAC/Big champs, the Sugar gets the SEC champ, the Fiesta takes the Big 12 champ, the ACC takes the Orange Bowl champ. If the Big East champ isn't enticing enough for a top bowl, then create their own bowl at slot in on January 1.

Fans and media will watch all the games, then decide who the top two teams are. So this year, you would have on January 1 something like this:

Rose: Oregon v. Wisconsin
Sugar: LSU v. Stanford
Fiesta: Oklahoma v. Nebraska
Orange: Alabama v. Clemson

Last year, New Year's Day could have looked like this:

Rose - Oregon v. Wisconsin
Sugar - Auburn v. Texas Christian
Orange - Virginia Tech v. Ohio State
Fiesta - Oklahoma v. Stanford

The year before,
Rose - Ohio State v. Oregon
Fiesta - Texas v. Boise State
Sugar - Alabama v. TCU
Orange - Florida v. Georgia Tech

I still think non-AQ schools and the BE champ would get selected for bowls if they were ranked very high. How is this not better? There would be 3 or 4 meaningful games on NY Day. Then have some system determine who #1/#2 are, and let them play the bye week before the Super Bowl.

(11-18-2011 05:43 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Congress needs to step in an do what the NCAA doesn't have the balls to do: fix college football.

I'm curious what you believe congress could/should do to "fix" college football.

Do you honestly think any congressman from Texas is going to vote to revoke the tax exempt status from UT? Substitute Michigan and UM, Ohio and OSU, California and Cal/UCLA, Georgia and UG/GT, Florida and FSU/Florida, etc.

Politicians would protect the interests of their large state flagship schools...who incidentally tend to belong to AQ conferences.

The problem with last years scenario....

There is NO guarantee that TCU would have been chosen at all, despite being #3. Back before the alliance, there were teams ranked highly like that- and were not taken.

To me- there's got to be some mechanism that if a conference champion is in the top 12- they are automatically in. Period.

(11-18-2011 02:00 PM)Chappy Wrote:  The whole point of the BCS was to keep the bulk of the money going to the bix six conferences.

The last round of media deals has dwarfed the BCS money.

I think that the Big Ten and Pac 12 will be more open to postseason reform, be it a playoff or just a +1, now that they along with the ACC, B12 and SEC will be making far more money than the other conferences.

Who knows why this 'only control the 1 vs 2' scenario has been a hot topic; it was just one of many scenarios discussed.

Poor logic. The bulk of the money was already going there. The idea was, quite simply to put together a fakey championship game and generate cash. To make it work in the bowl framework required a few more bowls involved (and more cash).

There continues to be cash to be made. Once again, as with the idea of 4 superconferences, a separate football division, etc. people assume and prepare for a contraction of the market when that is completely counter to the environment. There is more money to be had every year, more people, more fans, more schools, more players. You can bet on expansion not contraction (except in some volatile near/short term).

The scenario people are talking about would hurt non-AQ schools. That said, it's not at all likely to happen in the current environment - more bowls paying more money is more likely.

(11-18-2011 05:53 PM)MiamiWolv Wrote:  The BCS was formed to match #1 against #2 not to concentrate power among the top schools.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculously naive.

The BCS was ABSOLUTELY formed to consolidate money and power amongst the few at the expense of the many. They just needed to guarantee the #1 vs. #2 to gain the support needed to make that move.

How often in the BCS era has there been a controversy over whether or not the top two teams were playing? By my unofficial count it seems like every other year. And yet very little has been done to fix that obviously flawed aspect of the system. I wonder why that might be (he asked rhetorically/cynically).

(11-18-2011 07:01 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(11-18-2011 05:53 PM)MiamiWolv Wrote:  The BCS was formed to match #1 against #2 not to concentrate power among the top schools.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculously naive.

The BCS was ABSOLUTELY formed to consolidate money and power amongst the few at the expense of the many. They just needed to guarantee the #1 vs. #2 to gain the support needed to make that move.

How often in the BCS era has there been a controversy over whether or not the top two teams were playing? By my unofficial count it seems like every other year. And yet very little has been done to fix that obviously flawed aspect of the system. I wonder why that might be (he asked rhetorically/cynically).

I would say the number one v number two was the primary concern and the consolidation in name was gravy (they already had the the power in reality even if it wasn't as overt).

Also controversy isn't limited to the BCS and in fact it is less controversial. Before the BCS you had some really controversial national champions since the best teams may never have played each other at all. The BCS has controversy like the NCAA tournament in basketball causes problems, there is just not enough games beforehand and there are too many teams to eliminate all the controversy and you will always have people claiming this one team deserved and this one did not so long as there are any teams close to each other (in fact the basketball tourney might be more problematic in this regard).

(11-18-2011 06:00 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(11-18-2011 05:43 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Congress needs to step in an do what the NCAA doesn't have the balls to do: fix college football.

I'm curious what you believe congress could/should do to "fix" college football.

Do you honestly think any congressman from Texas is going to vote to revoke the tax exempt status from UT? Substitute Michigan and UM, Ohio and OSU, California and Cal/UCLA, Georgia and UG/GT, Florida and FSU/Florida, etc.

Politicians would protect the interests of their large state flagship schools...who incidentally tend to belong to AQ conferences.

Don't make the mistake of thinking politicians only represent the state schools. There are politicians that will make sure their constituents are represented. BTW one of the most powerful congressmen is Mitch McConnell. A Louisville season ticket holder. He is presently house minority leader. (He will soon be house majority leader if the 2012 elections go as expected.) Rest assured he will have the commissioners of every conference in congressional hearing if Louisville is left out of any reformed BCS. He has said as much already.

How to fix college football? Get rid of the tax exemption status of the conferences that make millions of dollars would be a good start.
CJ

(11-18-2011 07:15 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(11-18-2011 07:01 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(11-18-2011 05:53 PM)MiamiWolv Wrote:  The BCS was formed to match #1 against #2 not to concentrate power among the top schools.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculously naive.

The BCS was ABSOLUTELY formed to consolidate money and power amongst the few at the expense of the many. They just needed to guarantee the #1 vs. #2 to gain the support needed to make that move.

How often in the BCS era has there been a controversy over whether or not the top two teams were playing? By my unofficial count it seems like every other year. And yet very little has been done to fix that obviously flawed aspect of the system. I wonder why that might be (he asked rhetorically/cynically).

I would say the number one v number two was the primary concern and the consolidation in name was gravy (they already had the the power in reality even if it wasn't as overt).

Also controversy isn't limited to the BCS and in fact it is less controversial. Before the BCS you had some really controversial national champions since the best teams may never have played each other at all. The BCS has controversy like the NCAA tournament in basketball causes problems, there is just not enough games beforehand and there are too many teams to eliminate all the controversy and you will always have people claiming this one team deserved and this one did not so long as there are any teams close to each other (in fact the basketball tourney might be more problematic in this regard).

Yes and no.

The BCS was about getting all the major bowls on the same page to share a national championship game.

There was a big fight though since the inception of the concept of the bowl alliance to get into this group since the end result was a concentration of money and recruiting power.

If we did go back to #1 vs. #2 after 20 years of progress its going to hugely affect the entire bowl system. One of the important aspects of a BCS bowls is the games include highly ranked schools. It was huge for TCU and Boise to get a shot to play in BCS games and win to build respect for their programs. Prior to winning BCS games the non-AQ schools maxed out at about #10 in the rankings. Now they start as preseason #5.

It is my opinion the Big East with ND could get away with signing its champ to the Fiesta Bowl having so much tradition in that game and some potentially very solid western schools to supply in Boise State and BYU. After the Fiesta Bowl the BE has enough clout to cobble together a fairly solid bowl lineup as is the case now, likely adding a few western bowls to the league.

What is going to happen with Mount-USA? Will they be able to get a decent bowl for their champion? If their bowl game and TV contract isn't relavent on the national scene they are pretty much wasting their time and never be able to contend for a National Championship.

(11-18-2011 07:01 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(11-18-2011 05:53 PM)MiamiWolv Wrote:  The BCS was formed to match #1 against #2 not to concentrate power among the top schools.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculously naive.

The BCS was ABSOLUTELY formed to consolidate money and power amongst the few at the expense of the many. They just needed to guarantee the #1 vs. #2 to gain the support needed to make that move.

How often in the BCS era has there been a controversy over whether or not the top two teams were playing? By my unofficial count it seems like every other year. And yet very little has been done to fix that obviously flawed aspect of the system. I wonder why that might be (he asked rhetorically/cynically).

I couldn't disagree more. The BCS has not consolidated power in the hands of a few conferences, it has SPREAD it. In the old bowl system, how much of a chance would the Mountain West, WAC, Sunbelt, or MAC had a chance at making one the major bowls? Heck, how often would the current Big East make it? The current system has given more teams that ever access to major bowls and in turn given them more voice than ever on these issues.

The intention of the major conferences certainly wasn't to spread that power, but I think that's what they did anyway. I think their only real goal was to have a national title bowl (emphasis on bowl, it was just a bowl that would supersede all others).

(11-18-2011 08:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Rest assured he will have the commissioners of every conference in congressional hearing if Louisville is left out of any reformed BCS. He has said as much already.

Congressional hearings are just a sideshow. Let's get the senators on record to see if they'd vote to crush their state flagships and then we're talking. You think McConnell will get re-elected if he votes to financially destroy the University of Kentucky?

(11-18-2011 08:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(11-18-2011 06:00 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(11-18-2011 05:43 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Congress needs to step in an do what the NCAA doesn't have the balls to do: fix college football.

I'm curious what you believe congress could/should do to "fix" college football.

Do you honestly think any congressman from Texas is going to vote to revoke the tax exempt status from UT? Substitute Michigan and UM, Ohio and OSU, California and Cal/UCLA, Georgia and UG/GT, Florida and FSU/Florida, etc.

Politicians would protect the interests of their large state flagship schools...who incidentally tend to belong to AQ conferences.

Don't make the mistake of thinking politicians only represent the state schools. There are politicians that will make sure their constituents are represented. BTW one of the most powerful congressmen is Mitch McConnell. A Louisville season ticket holder. He is presently house minority leader. (He will soon be house majority leader if the 2012 elections go as expected.) Rest assured he will have the commissioners of every conference in congressional hearing if Louisville is left out of any reformed BCS. He has said as much already.

How to fix college football? Get rid of the tax exemption status of the conferences that make millions of dollars would be a good start.
CJ

They did a congressional report on removing tax exempt status for univeristy athletics. They found it would be difficult to remove it in the first place due to the fact that many of the factors used to determine removal the schools are not violating (one of which is that college football does not compete against anything similar and the NFL likes the system as is and does not want it to change so they continue to say they are not competing). Even if they did remove it they also found that schools can fairly easily circumvent the taxes easily. In that case what they hurt is the athletic money from going anywhere else as the money would now be spent in house to remove profit (such as going to pay players, coaches, etc).

There are ways to hurt the athletic dept more deeply without going through that hassle for so little gain.

(11-18-2011 07:15 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  I would say the number one v number two was the primary concern and the consolidation in name was gravy (they already had the the power in reality even if it wasn't as overt).

Also controversy isn't limited to the BCS and in fact it is less controversial. Before the BCS you had some really controversial national champions since the best teams may never have played each other at all. The BCS has controversy like the NCAA tournament in basketball causes problems, there is just not enough games beforehand and there are too many teams to eliminate all the controversy and you will always have people claiming this one team deserved and this one did not so long as there are any teams close to each other (in fact the basketball tourney might be more problematic in this regard).

Yeah, I've heard this song before but I don't necessarily agree with it. I think it is historical revisionism put out there by BCS apologists.

Prior to the advent of the Bowl Coalition => Bowl Alliance => Bowl Championship Series, when there was a discord on who to name as the national champion, the voters would usually split the difference, cop out and simply name both teams national champions.

It was certainly less clean than the current system but with a few exceptions it wasn't really all that controversial because that was the only system we had ever known to that point. Also, it was at least consistent with the rest of the antiquated system. Once the BCS implemented a "championship" game it essentially created a two-team playoff which changed the whole paradigm.

From that point forward people began to look at the championship game featuring the two best teams as an expectation, rather than as a bonus like it was prior to 1993. It also guaranteed that much of the public would always be somewhat dissatisfied until a full, eight or 16 team playoff is implemented - which will happen eventually.

So when Nebraska squeaked into the BCS national championship game despite not even winning the B12, that created outrage in Eugene, OR and Boulder, CO - each of whom believed they were more deserving than the Cornhuskers. And in 2003, even after LSU beat Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, the voters still split the title with USC and demanded a playoff between the two.

There will always be disagreement about who should be team No. 8 and team No. 9 or team No. 16 and team No. 17 but that would pale in comparison to the system we have now where fans of most teams feel like the system is broken and unsatisfactory.

There is no logical reason college football to not institute at least an eight team playoff.



It wasn't as definitive as