If I had a vote in the AP

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

lol, well excuse me coach or player, not sure which you have been if either because you still won't answer that, but anyway.

 

I'll put it this way, Utah is better than Bama, they proved it, end of discussion on that! As far as the BCS vs. Playoff business, we have our opinions, we'll see where it goes in real life.

 

Why does it matter? And no I never played football after middle school, but I had reasons far beyond the game of football that made me hate the sport at that time. After I left, I never had a desire to go back. People who have never been officials complain about them, people talk about the Pres but only 44 have been there, you dont have to be a part of something to have an opinion. Maybe you don't have the same experiences, but in my case I have very similar ones.

 

But anyways, with all sports you have to be mentally prepared. I would say golf and baseball require more concentration than anything else. Go and talk to any great golfer or pitcher/hitter, and they will have notebooks of notes on each opponent or course. Tony Gwynn scouted umpires to know each strike zones. So I understand what it means to be prepared, and at times its hard to be prepared. No one wants to prepare for the consolation game like Bama technically was in. Alabama came out flat, unprepared, unfocused. Period. Utah didnt let them come back. But thats part of the game and why Alabama lost.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Why does it matter? And no I never played football after middle school, but I had reasons far beyond the game of football that made me hate the sport at that time. After I left, I never had a desire to go back. People who have never been officials complain about them, people talk about the Pres but only 44 have been there, you dont have to be a part of something to have an opinion. Maybe you don't have the same experiences, but in my case I have very similar ones.

 

But anyways, with all sports you have to be mentally prepared. I would say golf and baseball require more concentration than anything else. Go and talk to any great golfer or pitcher/hitter, and they will have notebooks of notes on each opponent or course. Tony Gwynn scouted umpires to know each strike zones. So I understand what it means to be prepared, and at times its hard to be prepared. No one wants to prepare for the consolation game like Bama technically was in. Alabama came out flat, unprepared, unfocused. Period. Utah didnt let them come back. But thats part of the game and why Alabama lost.

 

As far as being mentally prepared, sure all sports require it. Football is just different. It's hard to see in in little league or jr. high, but it's diff than any other sport. For those who are really apart of their team, they love it more than many things in their life. I know we can say that about any sport, but I've played a few diff sports and football being one. You can't compare football to golf and baseball. That's silly to even try. I'd like to see someone get pumped for a golf match. I mean I like golf and have played a couple times, but it seems more of a leisure time sport than anything. I know play some high school or college matches and there is more to play for, but it's not football. Anyone can have opinions on everything, but being there and being part of it gives you the experience to know what I'm referring to.

 

Anyway Bama may have came out flat unprepared I doubt, unfocused maybe. Utah didn't let them come back and yes it's part of the game, it's also part of what makes them a better team.

Edited January 9, 2009 by fieldgeneral

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

I would vote Utah number 1. They beat Alabama worse than Florida, beat Oregon State which USC couldnt, and are UNDEFEATED. If Va Tech or WVU was in this situation we would say they deserved it. Why not UTAH.

 

Because the bcs is a corrupt system that won't have any other team outside of a bcs conference even considered. Aside from that utah should finish 1.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

But playing teams in a major conference week in and week out would present problems for these MWC, WAC, CUSA teams that come out of nowhere to win one big game. Sure, they can go undefeated and beat a good team once a year, but put them in a major BCS conference where they would play good teams every week and I think it would be a different story.

 

the sec is a difficult conference to play in for certain, I honestly don't think there's much difference between some bcs conferences and the better non bcs conferences though. I don't see any reason a team the caliber of utah couldn't have been undefeated in the some bcs conferences. Even if they have 1 defeat in 1 of the toughest conferences, that's not any different than the oklahmoa fl teams playing for the title. Perception is the reason they should drop pre season rankings and go with a system that factors in everything and doesn't rank any team until after 3 or 4 games played, pre season rankings are nothing but guesses and yet they have a big factor in determing how far teams do or don't have to climb in the polls throughout the season.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

"

Guys, let me give you another history lesson. Back before the BCS, no one cared even half as much for college football as they do know. Think about it, barring great WVU and VT teams that we may remember, the NFL dominated the 80's and 90's and no one even remembers the great college teams. Why? The BCS wasnt there. "

 

I disagree completely that people didn't care about college football before the bcs, as with high school football though, there's a lot more talk about it because of modern day media, back in the early '90s, '80s, '70s ect., you read about college football in the daily telegraph, that was a big difference, but people cared. There was controversy before the bcs to. the bcs didn't mess college football up, but it didn't do anything for a problem that was al;ready there. Infact if anything before the bcs, people didn't have this big idea that the only teams that mattered or were really good or deserving of anything were bcs conference teams, this bias has been a result of the bcs.

 

 

 

"Every single one of you know Utah couldnt go undefeated in ANY BCS conference this year. They beat a heartbroken, heartless, injured Bama team who had gone undefeated all season and ran into a great team in the SEC championship and lost to UF, and lost the dream of a NC. Playing Utah in the Sugar Bowl was almost a slap in the face. Utah on the other hand had everything to gain from a win, Bama nothing. Thats why Utah won, Im not saying they dont have athletes, but heart has a lot to do with it in any sport."

 

I don't agree with that at all, I don't know, that's the reason they have the games, but regardless that's a mute point as neither oklahmoa or fl could go undefeated either. If playing in the sugar bowl was a slap in the face to any team then they should take there arrogance and cry to someone else because I won't dignify that, but I doubt you're correct about that. They had the opportunity to play for the title and couldn't defeat fl, so goes sports.

 

"But you use this as a way to try and get a playoff when you know Utah wouldnt have won out."

 

There's not any reason to believe they couldn't have, every team except them proved they could be defeated, and utah seemed to be a darned good team in my opinion.

 

 

"Then you have the 8 team playoff, where Utah doesnt even probably get in. Where is your reasoning there? Are you going to take away Conference champions to get Utah in? Then what is the point of conferences? Or you might say let all the undefeateds in. Well we have 6 conference champions, and 3 mid major undefeateds. (it could have been Tulsa, Boise st, Ball st, Utah this year.) Who gets in then? What about the 1 loss Alabama team who was ranked #1 all year and wont get in because they lost 1 game? Thats not fair either."

 

Rank the teams properly with a system as such I suggested and then the teams that deserve to be there would be, if that takes away conference champions so be it, they're fun games but let's not fool ourselves, playoffs are the only realistic way to determine what team is best in any sport, college football isn't any different. It might be an unorthodox idea for people used to not having playoffs in college football to accept but it's simply the best.

 

 

"Look. Life isnt fair. Amazingly though the BCS almost is. And if you say its not, well may I remind you of that little number of 14%. 8 out of 56. The BCS has brought all of you into loving college football. It has given you something great, dont turn around and throw that gift away.

 

Every game matters."

 

 

I read this a lot in this argument but as I've always commented about it, this isn't life, it's sports, where fair is what people make it, and it could be made fair. So if being fair doesn't matter in competition, it's not worth doing. If the bcs were such a good system there wouldn't be controversy most seasons. If wv high school football had such a system, grafton wouldn't have even played for the title in '08 because as everyone would know only the bluefield's of wv would ever really be good enough to play for a title, and grafton with their easier schedule wouldn't ever have been able to earn the title in playoffs anyhow.

But that's the reason they have the games.

I'm not advocating that a utah type team or non bcs team would earn the title every season, maybe only 1 or 2 times a decade, but that's 1 or 2 times more than possible with the present system.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

No of course your right. TV contracts have just went up 500+%, more people are watching it than ever. But I mean if you say so.

 

Every game matters.

 

with all due respect exactly what do tv contracts have to do with anything, these are simply different times where there's lots of media and channels to have games and compete for contracts, ect., what was there in the '70s, 3 channels at best, abc, nbc and cbs? was fox around, espn, espn 2, it's simply a different media age. People were as fanatical about college football as they could be in the decades before the '90s.

[GetMoney55 11]

There is one National Champion: The University of Florida Gators

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

In some people's minds only, which is the reason that only playoffs could ever dignify college football.

[hokie07 11]

There is one National Champion: The University of Florida Gators

 

Agreed. With as much ruckus that has been caused about Utah, Texas, playoffs, etc., it's hard not to argue that the BCS didn't get it right once again. The two champions from the two best conferences met in the BCS title game and it was Florida who came out on top.

[blueinbama 259]

with all due respect exactly what do tv contracts have to do with anything, these are simply different times where there's lots of media and channels to have games and compete for contracts, ect., what was there in the '70s, 3 channels at best, abc, nbc and cbs? was fox around, espn, espn 2, it's simply a different media age. People were as fanatical about college football as they could be in the decades before the '90s.

Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make as well. You can spin all this other stuff all you want, but college football in the '70's, 80's, and 90's was just as popular and had just as many "crazy" fans then as it does today, and the BCS hasn't done anything to clear up the NC picture. Utah is still undefeated, and Texas still is a one loss team that beat Oklahoma. USC is a one loss team. Florida won the BCS National Championship last night, but it does not prove they are the best one loss team in the nation. Only a playoff would have decided that this year. And that's the way it is most years. A playoff is the only way to determine a true national champion.

[fieldgeneral 10]

There is one National Champion: The University of Florida Gators

 

I was for the Gators, but Utah deserves consideration. Utah beat Oregon State #18, TCU #7, BYU #25, and Bama#6 all ranked teams at the end of the season when it counts. They beat Alabama in the Sugar a BCS bowl. They didn't fluke up and win, they drummed them 31-17. Scored 30 or more in 9 games against FBS schools.

 

Florida beat 4 ranked teams UGA #13, and FSU #21, Oklahoma #5, Alabama #6. And scored 30 or more in 10 games that were against FBS schools and they still won.

 

I'm not saying Utah is better than Florida, just saying that you cannot exclude them from possibly being. It looks like the teams are fairly even except Utah is undefeated. Wouldn't it be fun to see Urban Myer face his old team in the NC to really settle it?

[Waspballer 10]

I would vote Utah number 1. They beat Alabama worse than Florida, beat Oregon State which USC couldnt, and are UNDEFEATED. If Va Tech or WVU was in this situation we would say they deserved it. Why not UTAH.

 

I think the top five should be:

 

1. Florida

2. Utah

3. USC

4. Texas

5. Oklahoma

[Popeye 32]

Found these interesting:

 

 

Pros, cons of a college football playoff

 

Why a college football needs a playoff

• Brings college football into conformity with major sports.

 

• Gives fans what they want. Surveys consistently show a solid majority for a playoff.

 

• Ends the confounding, split-championship nonsense. There's one winner, period.

• It's fairer than narrowing the national championship picture to a mere two teams and one game.

 

• It's lucrative. The most recent playoff plan seriously shopped to major football-playing schools would have grossed nearly $376 million a year, more than double current bowl payouts.

 

 

Why a college football playoff wouldn't work

 

• Would gut, if not destroy, the traditional bowl system, which allows 56 teams — almost half those in NCAA Division I-A — to stamp their seasons a “success†by reaching the postseason.

 

• Could diminish interest in the regular season. College football's is the most meaningful and drama-filled in sports. With no playoff and only two teams qualifying for a final shot at the national championship, there is so little margin for error that every game from late August to early December is vital.

 

• The college game would become even more commercialized and professionalized.

• A 16-team, four-round playoff would be during many final exams and extend the season into the second semester. Players would be harder-pressed to be students.

 

 

The sad truth is that there were disputes when the National Champion was determined by the polls, now there are disputes about the computer weighting/rankings and the BCS, and a playoff in D-1 football will not remove these disputes. It will only "change†the arguments and extend them to later in a season that may be too long as is.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Agreed. With as much ruckus that has been caused about Utah, Texas, playoffs, etc., it's hard not to argue that the BCS didn't get it right once again. The two champions from the two best conferences met in the BCS title game and it was Florida who came out on top.

 

 

people can't even agree that texas shouldn't have played in the big 12 title game, controversy all around, more than that there's not any reason the best team should have to be from 1 of the better conferences.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

as for the cons,

 

 

"Why a college football playoff wouldn't work

 

• Would gut, if not destroy, the traditional bowl system, which allows 56 teams — almost half those in NCAA Division I-A — to stamp their seasons a “success†by reaching the postseason.

 

• Could diminish interest in the regular season. College football's is the most meaningful and drama-filled in sports. With no playoff and only two teams qualifying for a final shot at the national championship, there is so little margin for error that every game from late August to early December is vital.

 

• The college game would become even more commercialized and professionalized.

• A 16-team, four-round playoff would be during many final exams and extend the season into the second semester. Players would be harder-pressed to be students.

 

 

The sad truth is that there were disputes when the National Champion was determined by the polls, now there are disputes about the computer weighting/rankings and the BCS, and a playoff in D-1 football will not remove these disputes. It will only "change†the arguments and extend them to later in a season that may be too long as is. "

 

 

they could still have bowl games and possibly even use the bcs bowl games as round 1 of the playoffs, if they used a ranking system as I suggested and did away with pre season ap rankings, that would have at least the 8 best teams in the playoffs, and there's only 3 more games after the bcs bowls, 2 semis and the title game. Doing away with the bowls wouldn't be as fun I agree so something along those lines would really be the only way to go without doing away with the bowls. Unfortunately college football's tradition is 1 of those things were they simply can't have it each way, so short of this people have to determine which they'd rather have.

 

While there's hardly any margin for error, it's because of system that is not adequate for determining which team is best, to much is out of the team's control. There wouldn't be much room for error either though if they had an 8 team playoff, and certainly as bluefield proved for example in '08, there wasn't any room for error in their season simply to earn a deserved position in wv's 16 team playoff format.

 

 

I personally don't see any reason the playofs would be during exams, they could easily be in jan. and besides exactly how many of ncaa's div 1a teams out of the 100 some would actually be in the games. What's the argument against this considering the number of games college basketball teams play?

 

When do playoffs realistically not settle the arguments?

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Ok, just to hit the last questions you asked, Exams are usually the second week of December. Waiting to take them in January would be extremely tough (I think thats what you meant), as a college student, I could not fathom that. If you extend all of the playoffs into January, well you would be done after the 20th. 2 weeks longer than what we have now.

 

As for college basketball, i know for a fact UNC takes a whole week off during exams. No games, light practices a few times a week. Thats it, and the same goes for plenty of other schools. The playoffs do not coincide with exams, as exams are in May.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

how many teams are we talking about though, a few at best, I don't consider there to be anything wrong if the season did have a few more games at this point and ended around the 3rd week in jan. But that's my opinion.

[JamesL_CcLB34 10]

i was thinking about this the other day imagine if they started a playoff this year and started like a couple weeks earlier than they do. like right now there are 4 teams who all have a valid argument that they are the best team florida, usc, utah, and texas i would love to see any of those teams play each other especially florida vs. usc.. i just wish a playoff had started this year

 

 

also buzzsaw beaver i don't know if you heard one of the announcers this week talking about the plus one system where they use the bowl games as a playoff sort of i kinda liked the general idea of it although they should fix some of the problems that they would run into not sure what kind of problems but i'm sure there are some.

Edited January 10, 2009 by JamesL_CcLB34

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

I have been advocating the 4 team playoff... Keep the importance of the regular season, the whole season, and still let the final 4 teams settle who is best... any more teams and you can lose 2, in some systems 3, and get in which is wrong...

Edited January 10, 2009 by BEAVERTAIL

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

4 teams would do a lot to settle situations such as this and be able to maintain the bowl system as well, the only thing is to use the 4 bcs bowls as playoffs with 3 games afterwards, 2 semis and the title game is they'd have to seed the 4 bcs bowls such as 8 vs. 1 in 1 bcs bowl likely, or maybe not, but it seems to me they would. That might be the downside they're talking about. They would likely have to do away with bids for bcs conference teams if they were going to use that as a playoff because they could only rightly go with the top 8 teams for the bcs bowls, and if a certain conference didn't have a top 8 team then they'd simply have to be out of the bcs bowls, I doubt that would go over to well with the bcs conferences.