Auburn's Tuberville Calls for Playoff System

[Eric]

I agree, a playoff in college football is a college basketball waiting to happen. We have a playoff for "the teams" and the NIT (bowl games) for the "other teams." You know why I don't care what Virginia Commenwealth and William and Mary did in college basketball? Because it doesn't mean anything! They probably aren't going to make the tourney (VCU might though ) and if they even did, they would be a 13 or 14 seed and get beat by 34 points and get knocked out of the first round.

Unlike say, in college football, there are actually attainable goals for the little guy. There is only one prize in college basketball and 28 in college football. Personally, I like watching teams from the WAC duke it out to see who is going to a bowl game other than Boise State. It gives smaller teams something to shoot for, and they would obvioulsy get the short end of the stick. There wouldn't be any sense in playing in 1-A if the season always ended in futility.

[colorado_loves_football]

Here's the problem I'm having: Tommy Tuberville wants to put his team in the NC game, in October. Sorry, you can't do that! And this is why I think we need a playoff. He's clearly trying to influence the 'human' component of the BCS (2/3). That's wrong, on so many levels!

Now, under 'my' proposal, he (Auburn) would be 'assured' a BCS invitation, by winning the SEC, outright. Boise St (5-0) would need to win the WAC, followed by a 'title' pairing against MWC champion (BYU?).
It's called 'competition' people! And, I was under the impression, that was what matters most, as far as the BCS goes.

I believe the BCS is 'inching' closer to a playoff, anyway. Positioning the title game, following the 4 BCS games, suggests as much. It wouldn't be that much of a 'stretch' to include two 'semi-final' games, and 'viola'!

So, the answer, is pretty cut-and-dried, IMO. Allow every conference a representative, provided they meet BCS criteria (top-12 ranking). For those that dont' meet that standard, 'traditional' BCS selection applies.
Then, allow those teams to play within a 'single-elimination' bracket, within existing bowl games. No team would be left 'crying' foul, EOS.

[Vileborg]

Every year I listen to someone shouting about how we should cut out bowls, and add a playoff system. I can remember a few decades ago when I was new to college football, and I screamed for a playoff. Then I realized that playoffs would diminish the strength of the bowls. Players would seek to go to the Colleges that consistently go to the playoffs, and the strength of college football would destabilize to the haves, and the have nots.
It's all about the money, and a playoff would give all the money to a few teams, and therefore offer further disadvantage. Would you rather go to a college that goes to the playoffs every year, has the high profile coaching staff, and has the full on-site training facility, or would you prefer the College that never goes to the playoffs, can only afford the English Professor for a coach, plays on a field of mud, and has second rate equipment.

The arguments have all been heard before, but unfortunately too many people don't know enough about the subject. It's easy to say the current system doesn't work. It's much harder to find a better solution that encompasses all the issues, and a playoff ignores the issues.

[Eric]

College basketball is very different. If you can find 7 or 8 players that can ball and a good coach, you could upset a UConn or someone of that proportions.

[Vileborg]

Certain colleges will always have an advantage. However, a few decades ago, would you have gone to Louisville? Would South Carolina been able to afford Spurrier? Would Virginia Tech have been able to pay an assistant coach over a million a year?
The simple emergence of teams over the last couple decades is proof that although the system is not perfect, it's doing a fair job at spreading the opportunity to succeed. A lot of people shun the systems of college football, but fail to realize that college football is much better off because of these systems.
I don't know about you, but I rather enjoy having more than four or five important games a year. I enjoy having ten teams competing for the title with no clear front runner. I would have liked to have seen Georgia Tech win 222-0, but I'm rather glad I don't have to worry about that. Because of the systems we have now there is more parity in college football, and I'm loving it.

[Eric]

Speaking of that GT/Cumberland game, I think that happened on this day in history.

[Eric]

I think we could do without a couple bowls too. I think college football could afford to slice off 4 postseason games. The 3 they have added is just pointless. Although I'll watch and enjoy!

[Eric]

When I say 3, I mean the New Mexico, Birmingham, and International Bowl. I do like the idea of the BCS championship game, but still, it does water down the BCS to 10 teams.

[Spence]

Vileborg-

What do you think happens now? Better teams get better recruiting classes because they have had better teams and get better exposure. Many schools have better facilities because they have better teams that get more alumni investment. The disparity is already there the same could be said for basketball.

Yes, but know the wealth is spread around to 25-30 teams. With 30-65 building teams with "diamond-in-the-rough" type players. Play-Offs would change that, go back and look at the viable bowl teams from 1945 when there were just a few bowls. See how many teams were viable, as far as championship teams. Play-offs would bring back the same situation. Only it would be worse.

I am an Ohio State fan and as far as the Buckeyes are concerned, we would have more opportunity in a play-off situation every year. That isn't the point. College football lowered the scholarship numbers to 85 to make more teams viable. It brought more teams into the picture. Play-offs would eliminate the gains made by the 85 scholarship rule.

[colorado_loves_football]

Just a thought. Maybe the little guy should head back to division 1aa.

Sorry, but if North Texas never makes another bowl at 5-6 I am not going to lose any sleep. (and they were the sunbelt champion). Does anyone here honestly think that the sun belt belongs in the same division as the BIG 10, SEC, etc? Maybe it is time to trim the fat.

Those bowls are already the NIT of CFB. Playoff or not, maybe we should make the bowls mean something again by cutting down the number of bowls and the number of teams in 1a. There are teams in 1aa that are better than teams in 1a on a consistent basis. Anyone else see a problem with that?

The Sun Belt, I believe was organized in 2001, at least as far as football is concerned. So I take your comments with a grain of salt (make that a chunk).
You clearly are delusional. Troy St (a team I-AA in 2002) nearly beat FSU, in Tallahassee. Followed that up with a 20-35 loss to Ga Tech (who just beat Va Tech 38-24). Now, tell me how 'bad' these teams are, if you can.
I just got done watching a game between MTSU (a team that lost 59-0 at Oklahoma, two weeks ago) and played Louisville pretty hard, IMO.
The final score (44-17) really wasn't indicative of how competitive the game was (two 'garbage' TD's by Louisville to close it out).
N. Texas, that year, I believe played fairly well, but lost, in the New Orleans Bowl. Since then, the Sun Belt has gotten better, much better, in my opinion. Are they BCS 'material', assuredly no, but they played Texas (NC Texas) pretty hard, IMO, much better than Rice did, and they scored a touchdown against their #1 defense.
Maybe those things don't matter to someone who can't see the forest for the trees. I've seen those 'ranking's that have the Sun-Belt 'lower' than some I-AA conferences, well maybe those conferences are pretty good!
Either way, I think you need to re-evaluate your position, and be fair.