Ok really how much longer do we have to put up with this charade of a championship that the BCS puts on.
FBS is the only major sport that doesn't decide their championship with a playoff. The only real answer is the money that the BCS brings in.

How about a good solid 16 team playoff. All the confrence champions get an automatic bid and the remaining 5 spots are awarded based on BCS ranking. All Seeding is done based on BCS ranking as well.

While it extends the football season for a few more games for those teams that make it. It is the only truly fair way to crown a National champion. And it more closely would emulate the NCAA basketball tourny which has the most drama and excitement of any playoff around.

Its just so stupid to have to put up with the crap the BCS gives us year in and year out.

This year we get a rematch for our national title game, we get a sugar bowl featuring 2 lesser teams that come from big 6 confrences because they passed over 2 better teams in Boise St and K state. Yes K state is from a big 6 but they had a better BCS ranking than both VT and Michigan.
There is a reason there are so many teams jumping in the big 6 confrences or trying to. Its the only way to get a true piece of the pie at the end of the day.

So the BCS is all about money and not at all about football. Its just plain stupid and it needs to stop.

So a team that can't even win its DIVISION, let alone its conference, is the national Champion. Um, whatever?

you won't see a playoff as long as the NCAA continues to say that players need to have time off to focus on exams. Which is a reasonable excuse to me. But yeah I wouold love to see a playoff system as well.

That's a load of crap about the exams, they keep adding games and having the bowl season go longer all the time.

I don't know about a 16 team tournament though. The Bowl series does make money for them, and is actually somewhat entertaining from a fan perspective, I think you can have both, if you just had an and 1 game if necessary. If LSU would have won then everything would have been fine, but one more game a week later if Bama won should have been scheduled. I think if you start going into a tournament you'll still have issues of who makes it in and who doesn't.

The biggest problem is not that teams don't get to play in the postseason, is that teams that probably deserve it don't get a shot at the title, and typically at the end of the year there really is only 2 teams that fit that bill.

Yeah, and how badly does March Madness warp midterms?

Lame excuse to cover the fact that they just care about the $.

So long as the school, the NCAA, the networks, and sponsors continue to reap nearly a BILLION DOLLARS off of the backs of college athletes. There would be plenty of room on the schedule by cancelling the 5 Bowl games, replace them with 2 rounds of playoffs + a National Title match. Basically the top eight teams ranked by RECORD that's right gone would the days of exclusion by "strength of schedule". Which is code for "yeah we colluded to exclude your team because it wouldn't be good for RATINGS" and we can't risk our "blue chips" going to a small university and elevating them to our level.

Yawn... you've bought into the ESPN anti-VT spin I see. First off, bowl games have been "all about money" for years now. It's nothing new. Notice I said bowl games and not the BCS because even before the BCS it was all about money.

As far as Virginia Tech being in the Sugar Bowl, can you argue that another team should have been there? Sure. Can you make a compelling, strong argument for it? Not even close. Keep in mind that Virginia Tech had to play in a conference championship game. Something Boise State and Kansas State (as well as Michigan) avoided. If VT doesn't end up in the ACC championship they finish with one loss and no one bats an eye at them being selected. Why should making a conference championship game punish a team? How would Michigan have done against Wisconsin in a Big 10 (12) championship game? How would Kansas State have done versus Oklahoma State? And you think Virginia Tech hasn't been on the other end of the "we deserved to go" stick? Take a look back at the 2000-2001 season when Virginia Tech finished with one loss (at #3 Miami with VT's best player injured) and #5 in the BCS rankings and was passed over for a Fiesta Bowl bid in favor of lower ranked (#6) Oregon State and MUCH lower ranked Notre Dame (#11). Notre Dame lost that game 41-9. So I'm sorry if I get a little annoyed at people acting like this is the first time this has ever happened or that Virginia Tech is the most undeserving BCS team ever.


"A better BCS ranking" has NEVER meant anything outside of the National Championship game so I don't understand why it's a big deal all of the sudden this year. Actually I do understand, it's because ESPN made a big deal and people who don't know any better fell for it hook, line and sinker. ESPN has moved from the business of covering college football into the business of influencing college football. They use their programming to push teams they want (SEC teams, Boise State) and turn away teams they don't (pretty much every other conference outside of a few PAC 10, Big 12 and Big 10 teams). Ironically, ESPN is to thank for Virginia Tech getting into the Sugar Bowl. They pushed an Alabama LSU rematch. That's what they wanted. And they got it. But that meant the Sugar Bowl had to take 2 at-large teams and one was VT. If the National Championship ends up with LSU vs Oklahoma State then Alabama goes to the Sugar vs Michigan and there's no way the Fiesta takes Virginia Tech. So ESPN lobbies for a match up it wants, gets it and then complains about the fallout from it.

A playoff will happen when it's financially beneficial for everyone involved. That's the way it's always been. I do not agree with the statement that you should make the playoffs based solely on your record. That's ridiculous. Boise State plays one to two teams of note every year and then feasts on a bunch of nobodies the other 8-9 games. If you go to strictly wins and losses then you can kiss goodbye ANY high profile out of conference games. Why should Florida State and Oklahoma play each other during the regular season if it's only going to hurt them? You'd see every team load up on Southwest Directional Illinois and the University of Miami Santa Barbara. And you couldn't fault them at all for doing it. There is a huge disparity in the talent level of teams in college football. It's not the NFL where yeah some teams suck but they're still filled with great players. For that reason you can't just go off of wins and losses alone. A win on the road versus Alabama should never count the same as a win at home versus Akron (sorry Zips fans).

The other big hurdle for a playoff is logistics. How many rounds and teams are there? How do you decide who gets in and who doesn't? And the biggest one... where do you hold the games? If you make them at a neutral site, you better plan on plenty of empty seats. Say you've got an 8 team playoff held at a neutral site each round. That means, as a fan, your team could potentially play 3 games at 3 different locations in the span of 3-4 weeks. The average fan is not going to have the money to travel to Miami for game 1, New Orleans for game 2 and Dallas for game 3 on pretty much consecutive weekends. There's just no way. Ticket sales would be horrible and would rely mostly on local people buying tickets to watch teams they don't care about play. I really think the only way a playoff is going to be viable is if the higher ranked team gets to play at home (but then people will complain that's too much of an advantage). You play all the rounds up until the championship game at the higher ranked team's stadium and then have the championship at a neutral location. That the only thing I see working and even then you're going to have teams left out and complaining. I agree a playoff is the way to go but I have yet to see a feasible proposal that would work. I want it to happen but it needs to be done right.