College Football

[Matt 1,049]

Ohio State can become the first team to beat 3 second ranked teams in one season.

Oh, they will -- there's no doubt about that.

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

They said Ohio State is also the first to beat two #2s in one season on the BCS selection show. I find that hard to believe, is that true?

I'm pretty sure Army or Navy did it in the 40s, and I'm sure someone else has.

[betterREDthandead 58]

And why not? Other than potentially fudging with exams and lessening the "value" of some big bowls, it's the only way you can legitimately claim that a team ran the gauntlet and is No. 1.

On the contrary, I think it takes away from "running the gauntlet". What's harder, winning 13 games or winning three? Yeah, supposedly most of those 13 games are against easier teams - ask USC if they really are easy.

Suppose a scenario played out where USC beat Ohio State in the championship of a playoff this year. What makes 2-loss USC any more legit of a champion than 1-loss OSU? USC supposedly ran the gauntlet, right? Not against Oregon State or UCLA.

[Happy Pancake 6]

Now I may change my mind after I sleep on this but I think for the first time ever I am going to be rooting for Ohio State in a game when it doesn't benefit Michigan.

And here's hoping for a Michigan-Florida bowl game next year, I don't care if it's the Alamo Bowl or the BCS Title Game, I have a serious bone to pick with the Gators.

On the contrary, I think it takes away from "running the gauntlet". What's harder, winning 13 games or winning three? Yeah, supposedly most of those 13 games are against easier teams - ask USC if they really are easy.

Suppose a scenario played out where USC beat Ohio State in the championship of a playoff this year. What makes 2-loss USC any more legit of a champion than 1-loss OSU? USC supposedly ran the gauntlet, right? Not against Oregon State or UCLA.

You bring up valid points but I think a playoff is necessary to avoid these stupid comparisons between teams that don't play each other. Human bias is a very poor method of picking who gets the one and only shot at a national title.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

No kidding. Nothing says "I'm the best" quite like actually beating the teams you're 'better' than.

[Matt 1,049]

What makes 2-loss USC any more legit of a champion than 1-loss OSU? USC supposedly ran the gauntlet, right?

What's the point of any football-related playoff then?

The regular season games would still mean something -- with USC's loss on Saturday they would've barely sneaked in if there was an 8-team playoff. The biggest point to me is that who-plays-who can't ultimately be left up to people making decisions based conjecture, politicking or a "it's not who's the 2nd best team, it's who hasn't had 'their shot.'"

There'd have to be some kind of playoff system where you're major conference champions get in and the rest would have to (gulp) left to some polling method. It would boil down to picking out the best 8 or 16 teams in the nation -- granted, some teams on the bubble in the middle of the rankings would get screwed, but this isn't a case where pollsters voted and felt that, on November 19th that Michigan and Ohio State were the top two teams in the nation...

... and the No. 2 team is getting punished for not playing the last two weeks.

Well, one team (USC) was exposed for the fraud it was passing Michigan last week. Looks like we'll see the other on January 8th.

Now I may change my mind after I sleep on this but I think for the first time ever I am going to be rooting for Ohio State in a game when it doesn't benefit Michigan.

Always cheer for Big 10 teams during Bowl season.

[mannysBETTER3434 1]

Heck yeah I will be a buckeye fan Jan 7 (or 8?). 47-13 Buckeyes

My problem with a playoff...

Okay lets say you take the 4 best teams as of now: OSU, FLA, U-M, and LSU. Everyone would still be fighting. What about Wisky? What about Louisville, or Oklahoma?? Point is if we had a playoff now there would be even more fighting then there is now because more teams would be getting screwed.

Great article here if you like U-M

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...&id=2685195

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

I actually don't mind that FLA gets their shot, but the reason I am so against it is because Meyer will not stop his crying. I agree with Carr's quote..

"I think it's going to be a great controversy, I don't care who gets selected," Carr said, "because I just think that based on some of the comments the Florida coach has made in the last two weeks -- campaigning strenuously for a berth in the championship game -- and making some statements about Michigan that I think were inappropriate."

When FLA/OSU meet I don't see how OSU won't blow FLA out. Thier offense is a gimick, and the OSU D would kill Chris Leak, who is total joke.

I agree - Urban Meyer is the #1 a-hole coach in Amercia now in my book. First he ******* because he is on the outside looking in, crying for a playoff. Then he whines and campaigns in my mind inappropriately for his team. Now that he's in, he now won't say definitively whether he would support a playoff. When asked about OSU, he says he doesn't really watch the Big Ten - OSU or Michigan - and has only seen them play the last game in Columbus (who didn't?). Of course this guy should support his team and his school, but what a jerk imo. At least Lloyd has some class and didn't stoop to dissing Florida to try to get his team in. I hope OSU smokes their behinds - I see no reason why they won't - hopefully the ridiculously long layoff won't be a factor.

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

10. Michigan didn't win the Big Ten; Florida won the SEC. Winning your conference should be a prerequisite for playing in the national championship.

You know i might agree that winning your conference should be a prerequisite, but it is not currently in the BCS. Actually, if it was, then both OSU and UM would know going into the Nov 18th game that the loser could absolutely not go the NC bowl. But that wasn't the case.

There are a number of scenarios where two teams from the same conference could be #1-2 like this year. Maybe two Big 12 or 2 SEC teams. What if Texas or Oklahoma run the table, exept for one has a single loss to the other. Let's say every other team has 2 losses. Only one would be the conference winner, should the other be denied the rematch even if all the other teams have 2 losses??? etc etc.

For the Big Ten, we often have shared conference winners - which would actually be an advantage over most of the other conferences. The other conferences certainly wouldn't like that.

If the NCAA ever goes to a playoff system. the championship game will probably disappear. I'm split on the Big Ten. On one hand, seeing our teams play later like the other conferences would help us out. There could be a way to put UM and OSU in different divisions, but would you want to? If OSU/UM were in the same big ten division This year, OSU would have to play an extra game vs Wisconsin - that would not benefit them at all. Nothing to gain, everything to lose. Also, if UM and OSU were in different brackets, they would rematch in the championship game. In fact, they would rematch most years. That would make the regular season meeting fairly meaningless imo.

For me, I thought Mich was going to the Rose Bowl anyways - hey it's like our second home; I'm not upset about it at all. The whole BCS thing is just such a mess every year it just makes me sick - and it's done that plenty when my team wasn't in the mix. I'd almost rather have the old bowl system back - teams were locked into the Bowls and the NC team was subjective. The BCS is just as subjective - and there's always more fighting/disagreement about it.

[Matt 1,049]

My problem with a playoff...

Okay lets say you take the 4 best teams as of now: OSU, FLA, U-M, and LSU. Everyone would still be fighting. What about Wisky? What about Louisville, or Oklahoma?? Point is if we had a playoff now there would be even more fighting then there is now because more teams would be getting screwed.

Well, you wouldn't have just a 4-team playoff. At minimum you'd be talking 8.

The best bullet point to that ESPN article was Wojciechowski's last:

• Florida has earned the right to play Ohio State.

Absolutely true. But so has Michigan.

Ask the coaches at Vanderbilt (the Commodores played both Michigan and Florida this season) who is the better team, and the consensus pick -- privately, of course -- is the Wolverines. Florida has more speed and a handful of players to die for, they say, but Michigan is more physical, would control both sides of the line of scrimmage, have wonderful wide receivers, and are led by a senior quarterback who doesn't make many mistakes.

Ask them who would give Ohio State the better game, and you'll get the same answer.

Tuberville voted Ohio State, Florida and then Michigan on his final ballot. "But I watched Michigan this year," he said. "Heck, I think they could beat anybody. But that's the way the system is. It's a screwed-up system." Michigan never had that chance. It was 11-1 on Nov. 18. It was 11-1 on Dec. 3. But between then and now the Wolverines apparently became the cellulite queens and somehow lost the swimsuit portion of this ridiculous BCS beauty pageant .

[BlakChamber 8]

On the contrary, I think it takes away from "running the gauntlet". What's harder, winning 13 games or winning three? Yeah, supposedly most of those 13 games are against easier teams - ask USC if they really are easy.

Suppose a scenario played out where USC beat Ohio State in the championship of a playoff this year. What makes 2-loss USC any more legit of a champion than 1-loss OSU? USC supposedly ran the gauntlet, right? Not against Oregon State or UCLA.

Every other division in ncaa football can make a playoff work, there's no reason that D1 can't as well. Of cour$e, I know why the big $chool$ wouldn't want to $witch to a playoff $y$tem.

[Matt 1,049]

Of cour$e, I know why the big $chool$ wouldn't want to $witch to a playoff $y$tem.

Ding-Ding-Ding... we have a winner. The way they have it set up this year, with the 5th game instead of rotating the "major" bowl venue, would help, too... You'd just have to "promote" two other bowls if once you got down to eight teams, and rotate the semis. (Or, hell, have the semis be the four "major" bowls and then hold the semis and the championship on the same field... A la the Fietsa Bowl and the BCS championship. That'd be some hellacious logistics (integrity of the playing field for the semis, extra day off potential, etc.) but somethings got to be better than what we've got now.

While I love the tradition of the Rose Bowl, it seems to be growing more and more archaic and has been slightly phased out by the BCS, anyway. 16-team playoff and call it a day. Or something. ANYTHING but a BCS system that gradually every year just shows you how @#$#@% up it is.

[BlakChamber 8]

This is an aside, but there's one more reason I didn't want to see the rematch. I was subjected to about 2 weeks worth of non-stop coverage about how the OSU/UM was the game of the century, and whoever won this would win the national championship. Then the games over, and its like, "oh, well, they'll just end up playing again." Of course, it's all ESPN's doing.

[betterREDthandead 58]

OK, playoff junkies. Here's a list of games that had an effect on the title race. Some of these games were "dagger" games - the first loss of 2 for contenders, and others finished them off. Some of them gave a boost to the winner. They all involve at least one team that had a legitimate hope at winning the title - that is, were highly ranked with just one loss at some point during the period that BCS rankings were coming out. Keep in mind that some teams (California, Clemson, etc.) may not look like actual contenders, but their losses came at times that, had they won, they would have been in the hunt. Cal lost three games, for example, but their games against Tennessee and Arizona are important because had they won, the game against USC would have been a colossal matchup. Clemson, though not spoken of in terms of the title chase, was ranked 10th at the time of their loss to VT, and would have gone even higher with a win thanks to USC's loss that week, and West Virginia and Tennessee losing the week after.

USC @ Arkansas - Sep. 2 (Dagger for Arkansas)

California @ Tennessee - Sep. 2 (Boost for Tennessee, dagger for Cal)

Ohio State @ Texas - Sep. 9 (#1 vs. #2 - dagger for Texas)

Clemson @ Boston College - Sep. 9 (Dagger for Clemson)

Michigan @ Notre Dame - Sep. 16 (Boost for Michigan, dagger for Notre Dame)

Oklahoma @ Oregon - Sep. 16 (Dagger for Oklahoma)

Florida @ Tennessee - Sep. 16 (Dagger for Tennessee)

Nebraska @ USC - Sep. 16 (Dagger for Nebraska)

LSU @ Auburn - Sep. 16 (Dagger for LSU, boosted Auburn)

Wisconsin @ Michigan - Sep. 23 (Finished Wisconsin)

Georgia Tech @ Virginia Tech - Sep. 30 (Dagger for Virginia Tech)

Arkansas @ Auburn - Oct. 7 (Boosted Arkansas, dagger for Auburn)

LSU @ Florida - Oct. 7 (Finished LSU)

Texas @ Oklahoma - Oct. 7 (Finished Oklahoma)

Oregon @ California - Oct. 7 (Dagger for Oregon)

Virginia Tech @ Boston College - Oct. 12 (Finished Virginia Tech)

Florida @ Auburn - Oct. 14 (Nearly finished Florida, boosted Auburn)

Oregon @ Washington State - Oct. 21 (Finished Oregon)

Texas @ Nebraska - Oct. 21 (Finished Nebraska)

Clemson @ Virginia Tech - Oct. 26 (Finished Clemson)

USC @ Oregon State - Oct. 28 (Dagger for USC)

West Virginia @ Louisville - Nov. 2 (Dagger for West Virginia)

LSU @ Tennessee - Nov. 4 (Finished Tennessee)

Louisville @ Rutgers - Nov. 9 (Finished Louisville)

Georgia @ Auburn - Nov. 11 (Finished Auburn)

Texas @ Kansas State - Nov. 11 (Finished Texas)

California @ Arizona - Nov. 11 (Finished Cal)

Michigan @ Ohio State - Nov. 18 (THE game - finished off Michigan, put OSU in the game)

Rutgers @ Cincinnati - Nov. 18 (Finished Rutgers)

LSU @ Arkansas - Nov. 24 (Finished Arkansas)

South Florida @ West Virginia - Nov. 25 (Finished West Virginia)

Notre Dame @ USC - Nov. 25 (Boost for USC, finished Notre Dame)

USC @ UCLA - Dec. 2 (Finished USC)

Florida vs. Arkansas - Dec. 2 (Put Florida in the game)

What would lose significance under a playoff? Well, most of these games, for starters. Michigan-Ohio State. USC-UCLA. Florida-just about anyone. USC-Arkansas. Pretty much every game early on, since with a playoff, you can slip up (and slip up again) and it won't matter. Pretty much every important non-conference game (check out the lineup on Sep. 16 - most of those teams would make a playoff, so why bother?) And of course, mistakes that are currently magnified (USC-Oregon State) get swept under the rug with a playoff. Would we have tuned in so interestedly to Michigan's games against Northwestern or Indiana or Iowa if there was a playoff? Would anybody at all have cared about what happened on Saturday? Nope. Arkansas, Florida, USC, West Virginia, and Rutgers would all have been in the playoff (assuming 16), rendering the games totally meaningless.

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

It would change one of the things I love most about college football, if you lose once, youre done. I've always liked that...makes those upset games so exciting. There are big problems with the way the BCS works but Ohio State has been screwed by it so I dont have a big problem. I know that if I were in your shoes I might feel different but I'm not sold on the playoffs.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

This is my final thoughts on the whole bowl game subject/BCS.

As much as I don't like Florida, they made a compelling case to play in the National Championship. So has Michigan, despite not playing since the middle of November and despite losing to Ohio State.

The bottom line is, unless you have either two clear-cut undefeated teams like last year playing for the National Championship, or just 1 team w/o any losses and 1 team with just 1 loss (which is all but impossible), the system is a flawed system and will never, ever, be fair.

Personally, I think it's a joke that Nebraska got to play in the 2001 Championship and OU got to play in 2003 when both lost their conference championship game. Now, before you MSU fans get on my behind there saying that Michigan didn't win it's conference either, look at the losses in the conference championship games. Nebraska lost to Colorado, OU lost to Kansas State. Nothing against Colorado or KSU, but they weren't going to be playing for any National Championship that year. Michigan's sole loss was to OSU, #1 all year. And OU, correct me if I'm wrong, had 2 losses that season before losing to LSU in the finale.

The best solution, at least this year to mme, would have been for Michigan and Florida to square off somehow, then the winner plays OSU, winner take all. But, you obvioiusly can't have a band-aid approach that varies from year-to-year.

And as an aside, as a big LSU fan I thought it would've been cool if they could have squeezed into the Rose Bowl, but Sugar is sweet as they say. It will be like a glorified home game, the Sugar Bowl (along with the "intimidating" /sarcasm New Orleans Bowl) returns to New Orleans. It'll be a great story for the city still working to get back on it's feet, and restaurants and shops will be buzzing those few days, so it'll be good for a small businesses downtown and in the French Quarter to get some much needed dollars.

[timothy1997 0]

Interesting discussions. While I don't like the thought of a playoff system, I have no problem with an "and 1" system. No one argues that Ohio State is the #1 team in the country, but the real debate is who is #2. Here is what you do differently.

--Have the BCS determine who is #1 in the nation. That #1 gets a bye week and doesnt play in the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange or Rose Bowl.

--Have a rotating bowl "advancement game" featuring #2 and #3 in the BCS, this year being Florida and Michigan....they can play in say Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl on Jan 1st.

--The other bowl games mean nothing in the National Championship game.

--Have the winner of the "advancement game" play the #1 team on Jan 8th for the national championship.

The computers, coaches and harris polls can all determine the BCS just like they do now but looking at the system, its not a debate on who is #1, but #2 rather. This system allows for the bowl games and to have the best teams play on the field to determine the championship.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Interesting discussions. While I don't like the thought of a playoff system, I have no problem with an "and 1" system. No one argues that Ohio State is the #1 team in the country, but the real debate is who is #2. Here is what you do differently.

--Have the BCS determine who is #1 in the nation. That #1 gets a bye week and doesnt play in the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange or Rose Bowl.

--Have a rotating bowl "advancement game" featuring #2 and #3 in the BCS, this year being Florida and Michigan....they can play in say Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl on Jan 1st.

--The other bowl games mean nothing in the National Championship game.

--Have the winner of the "advancement game" play the #1 team on Jan 8th for the national championship.

The computers, coaches and harris polls can all determine the BCS just like they do now but looking at the system, its not a debate on who is #1, but #2 rather. This system allows for the bowl games and to have the best teams play on the field to determine the championship.

That'd work this year. Last year it would have been a joke, as there were two very definite clear teams that should play for the title, Texas and USC. There was no third team.

[timothy1997 0]

... and the No. 2 team is getting punished for not playing the last two weeks.

The thing to remember in the FINAL BCS poll is that the human element is a huge factor. Some of the coaches throughout the season just vote to get it over with or don't even vote at all until the end. Their mindset thru the season is "who is #2 now", but when it comes to the end they think different. They vote on "who is the #2 team all year long". Yes, they also look at "what have you done for me lately" and with Michigan not on the field in forever it seems, hurt them.

The thing that gets me for those people crying for a playoff. If you have a playoff system, then basically your saying that a lot of games during the season DON'T MATTER. Michigan and Ohio State would have rested a ton of their players in order to save them for the playoffs. Do we really want a Michigan-Ohio State game with a bunch of walk on's playing. Like betterRED and Hockeytown said. You lose once, early or late...it hurts you. No other college or pro sport is like that.

That'd work this year. Last year it would have been a joke, as there were two very definite clear teams that should play for the title, Texas and USC. There was no third team.

That is more of the rarity that the BCS actually works.

I don't see nothing wrong with having Penn State getting a title shot by beating Texas and then having to play USC. PSU would have gotten crushed and it would still have texas and usc in the title game.....or PSU would have beat texas and usc and no one could argue that they wouldnt have earned it after beating those two titans.

[Matt 1,049]

The thing to remember in the FINAL BCS poll is that the human element is a huge factor. Some of the coaches throughout the season just vote to get it over with or don't even vote at all until the end. Their mindset thru the season is "who is #2 now", but when it comes to the end they think different. They vote on "who is the #2 team all year long". Yes, they also look at "what have you done for me lately" and with Michigan not on the field in forever it seems, hurt them.

What you just mentioned here is exactly what is WRONG with the system. The BCS should NOT be determined due to politicking, or who "deserves a shot", or whatever. That is NOT what it is for. You're voting for who you feel are the best two teams in college football. Period.

If pollsters wanted to rule out a rematch then Michigan shouldn't have remained No. 2 following 11/18. It was brought up in the newspapers, but if Michigan/Ohio State had happened earlier in the season and the teams continued to win out after that -- would've Florida passed them? Nope.

While I'm definitely biased, I'd think you'd have an incredibly hard time finding a majority of football minds out there that actually feel that Florida -- or any of the other 1-loss teams -- are better than Michigan. So throw the "Michigan had their shot" crap out of the window -- you're not voting for who had their shot or who is a conference champion and who isn't. You're voting for the two best teams in the nation. That's how the system is set up.

If USC had won on Saturday and Florida beat Arkansas, do you really think that Florida would've still leapfrogged Michigan? Nope. Heck, even Vegas oddsmakers favor Michigan by a touchdown if they ever faced Florida.

OSU should have fun playing with their sacraficial lamb.

The thing that gets me for those people crying for a playoff. If you have a playoff system, then basically your saying that a lot of games during the season DON'T MATTER. Michigan and Ohio State would have rested a ton of their players in order to save them for the playoffs.

If you're looking at a playoff system with 4-8 teams I don't know how you could even fathom saying that ANY game still "doesn't matter." A single loss could very well bump you beyond the No. 8 spot. It's high time that college football's DIV-I championship is annually decided on the field and not on a campaign trail. You don't think Auburn still burns over getting shafted a few years ago?

[timothy1997 0]

What you just mentioned here is exactly what is WRONG with the system. The BCS should NOT be determined due to politicking, or who "deserves a shot", or whatever. That is NOT what it is for. You're voting for who you feel are the best two teams in college football. Period.

If pollsters wanted to rule out a rematch then Michigan shouldn't have remained No. 2 following 11/18. It was brought up in the newspapers, but if Michigan/Ohio State had happened earlier in the season and the teams continued to win out after that -- would've Florida passed them? Nope.

While I'm definitely biased, I'd think you'd have an incredibly hard time finding a majority of football minds out there that actually feel that Florida -- or any of the other 1-loss teams -- are better than Michigan. So throw the "Michigan had their shot" crap out of the window -- you're not voting for who had their shot or who is a conference champion and who isn't. You're voting for the two best teams in the nation. That's how the system is set up.

If USC had won on Saturday and Florida beat Arkansas, do you really think that Florida would've still leapfrogged Michigan? Nope. Heck, even Vegas oddsmakers favor Michigan by a touchdown if they ever faced Florida.

OSU should have fun playing with their sacraficial lamb.

If you're looking at a playoff system with 4-8 teams I don't know how you could even fathom saying that ANY game still "doesn't matter." A single loss could very well bump you beyond the No. 8 spot. It's high time that college football's DIV-I championship is annually decided on the field and not on a campaign trail. You don't think Auburn still burns over getting shafted a few years ago?

The coaches and harris poll all felt that Florida was the 2nd best team in the nation. The SEC was a better conference this year than the Big Ten.You make it seem like Florida didn't do anything special. Florida had the toughest schedule in NCAA, they beat 5 teams in the final BCS top 25 standings compared to Michigan's 3. Michigan is the team that didn't do anything special. They beat Notre Dame and Wisconsin. BIG WHOOP!! Florida beat LSU and won their conference. You can cry all you want about how Michigan only lost to OSU by 3 pts but the game shouldn't have been that close. The Buckeyes turned the ball over 3 times!

In this year, the Michigan-Ohio State game would have been MEANINGLESS based on both teams would have made it in the top 4 in the nation regardless of who won. A 4 or 8 team playoff system would ruin it for the smaller conferences. Do you really think Boise State would be in the top 8 under a playoff system?? Boise State is going to the Fiesta Bowl well deserving of their bid, going undefeated.

Edited December 4, 2006 by timothy1997

[betterREDthandead 58]

If you're looking at a playoff system with 4-8 teams I don't know how you could even fathom saying that ANY game still "doesn't matter." A single loss could very well bump you beyond the No. 8 spot. It's high time that college football's DIV-I championship is annually decided on the field and not on a campaign trail. You don't think Auburn still burns over getting shafted a few years ago?

How does anyone get away saying a playoff would take the human element out of it? They'd still have to decide who gets the last spots somehow. It's not like a playoff would magically "decide it on the field", because they'd still have to decide in a boardroom and on a computer chip who plays. And what's harder? Picking between Florida and Michigan for the second spot? Or picking between Arkansas, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Oklahoma, LSU, USC, Auburn, West Virginia, Wake Forest, Texas, and Tennessee for the final couple spots in a playoff?

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

How does anyone get away saying a playoff would take the human element out of it? They'd still have to decide who gets the last spots somehow. It's not like a playoff would magically "decide it on the field", because they'd still have to decide in a boardroom and on a computer chip who plays. And what's harder? Picking between Florida and Michigan for the second spot? Or picking between Arkansas, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Oklahoma, LSU, USC, Auburn, West Virginia, Wake Forest, Texas, and Tennessee for the final couple spots in a playoff?

Tiebreakers? Wins, conference wins, head to head wins, points for/against, coin toss, etc. Take the human element right on outta there.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Tiebreakers? Wins, conference wins, head to head wins, points for/against, coin toss, etc. Take the human element right on outta there.

Oh, a coin toss would really settle things. Nobody would feel jobbed if it came down to heads or tails.

Then why not apply tiebreakers to the current situation and drop the whole notion of a playoff? Strength of schedule, perhaps? They purposely took point differential out so that Nebraska would stop playing West Southeastern North Dakota State and running up 90 points on them. Don't see that coming back any time soon. Wins and conference wins are not gonna tiebreak anything. Head-to-head might eliminate a few conference rivals, but do nothing for Arkansas vs. West Virginia, say. I'm at work, so I don't have time to actually apply tiebreakers to a potential 8 or 16 team playoff and really find out if that would solve things, but my gut says the human element will always be at work, and so will the computers.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Oh, a coin toss would really settle things. Nobody would feel jobbed if it came down to heads or tails.

Coin toss is obviously the Final Solution, I've never known it to actually find use as the last tiebreaker for the NFL playoffs.

Then why not apply tiebreakers to the current situation and drop the whole notion of a playoff?

Because the best teams in the country should still play one another. Stats get you in, wins do the rest.

Strength of schedule, perhaps? They purposely took point differential out so that Nebraska would stop playing West Southeastern North Dakota State and running up 90 points on them.

Just put in conference PF/PA first. Problem solved.

Head-to-head might eliminate a few conference rivals, but do nothing for Arkansas vs. West Virginia, say. I'm at work, so I don't have time to actually apply tiebreakers to a potential 8 or 16 team playoff and really find out if that would solve things, but my gut says the human element will always be at work, and so will the computers.

It might, but tiebreakers would probably move NCAA football farther from controversy regardless. Teams may still get jobbed, but instead of by the subjective thoughts of our feeble human minds, we get the cold hard machine of objectivity cranking out brackets.

Even if you really, really, really, hate playoffs, a lot of this wrangling and hair-pulling could still be dispensed with, as well as the perceived need for a playoff system, if instead of the dual-polls a points system for each win/loss was instituted. A scale to determine the value for either defeating a high-ranked team or losing to a lower-ranked one for the allocation or subtraction of quality-points can easily be formulated, and initial rankings for each season can be based on the finishing rankings for the previous one. You'll still wind up with controversies but at least one source for it â€â€the highly subjective and biased coaches and sportswriters polls would be eliminated and rankings would be put on a far more logical mathematical basis.