No playoffs ... PLEASE

I agree the season is exciting and College Football promotes it's games by stating that every game counts but playoffs of some sort is the way to settle things where they should be settled and that's on the field.  Even if it is under the current system which currently has only two teams playing for the title at the end (Ohio St. vs. LSU).

While every game seems to count during the regular season, the downside of all this is that (from a bowl game perspective) all bowl games are meaningless except the title game or if you're say the school administration involved in one of the other BCS Games you'll get a decent payoff.

A nightmare nearly happened when it looked as though Missouri/Kansas would be playing West Virginia in the title game.  Clearly, none of those teams are the best in the country.  Both Ohio State and LSU fit that bill,however, at least on paper.  Sure you can make a case for Georgia, USC, or another team but I would say wait until all the bowl games have been played before making that comparison.

With Ohio State, you have a team that held Michigan to only three points at Ann Arbor, and also what I feel is the best defense in the country.  With LSU, you have consistently the best team in the SEC, and both Ohio State and LSU were consistently the best two teams all year long in all of college football.  When comparing the two the SEC presented LSU with a tougher schedule and the two games they lost were track meets in points.  Not a 35-14 blow out by Tennessee of Georgia or a loss to a 40 point plus underdog like USC falling to Stanford.  

A playoff system that involved say six teams with a first week bye for those finishing numbers one and two might actually help college football rather than waiting all year to get down to two teams and then waiting another month or so to actually see the title game itself.  Plus, more bowl games could be involved in the playoffs rather than having all bowl games (except the title game) at the end of the season meaningless in the eyes of fans who follow the game.  Plus all these winners of bowl games make it seem like a mockery of teams trying to steal the spotlight and claim they are the best when in reality there is only room at the top for one team.  Name another team sport that does not have one champion at the end of the season?  Sure most fans are disappointed that the one team in the end is not their team but that is what makes it exciting in itself and there is always next year.  In addition, with those six spots up for grabs, teams are not going to want to play weak schedules because, like the NCAA in basketball season, someone based on strength of schedule or quality wins is always going feel they have been left out.  With a six team playoff, it just would not be as many teams left out of the picture at the end as there are now plus it takes a little focus away from the overall record and balances it out by placing it a little more on strength of schedule.  Perhaps then maybe an undefeated team like Hawaii could earn it's way to a chance at the title and be ready to play with the big boys of college football.

"Every single game during the regular season carries so much weight, it creates a playoff atmosphere the entire season. I love that feeling".

I can think of one game that apparently didn't carry any weight at all - OHIO St v Illinois? and two others that were lost by LSU.

Now with that said I do not have a problem with Ohio being in the N.C. game. Ohio is a great program and under the current system they deserve it as much as anyone.

My problem with your basketball comparison is this basketball has like 25 games or some thing like that. I think the preseason in basketball is a little too long the conference games are exciting at least in the conference I follow. And while we are on the subject of preseason is it really all that exciting to watch OSU beat up Youngstown State every year, really!

If you use the following system:

16 team playoff.

11 conference winners plus 5 highest ranked that did not win conference or are independent.

Use 15 of the current bowl games for the playoffs.

Drop one regular season game so that only 2 teams end up with 15 games. D1AA- D2 and D3 have all done this for ever so don't pull the "it's too many games card." Ask Georgia and USC if they would play an extra two games this year!

Begin playoffs first week of December and the N.C. game ends up on or before where it is this year.

A true undisputed National Champion in College football imagine that!

The other 17 bowls would still be used to reward the best of the rest for a great season.

This is the way to solve the problem. It works in every other sport in the world. Why not College Football, cause the Big Six Conference's won't let go of the choke hold they have on the MONEY!

If you want an exciting conference season this is the way to do it. You have to win your conference for a guaranteed spot, or hope to back in through a great season with maybe a slip up.

In this system every game really would matter even the one against Youngstown State! Just Joking. I know the penguins need the money.

Leave the opinion polls to figure skating where it belongs!

Good post noftbl4me ... I think a 16-team playoff might be too many teams. Let's say a #16 team, like an Illinois team with 3 losses, runs the postseason table and upsets an undefeated Florida team: are they really the best team in America because they got hot at the right time?

I liken it to the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals ... yes, they won the World Series, but to label that team the best in baseball that season is ludicrous. They just got hot at the right time.

BCS-flaws withstanding, for the most part college football champions are currently rewarded for the winning teams' complete body of work, not the final stretch of games. I hear people piping in about USC being the best team ... wrong. They lost two games, including one to a huge underdog at home. They may be able to beat anyone from this point forward, but their body of work for the season does not deserve a title.

I respect your points, and a playoff would be exciting, I just really think it would take away from regular season matchups.

For example: Let's say #1 LSU were to meet #4 Tennessee in the SEC title game. Both are assured postseason bids based on your system ... do they rest their starters? Imagine LSU losing their starting QB in this game, ruining their chances for a national title? Besides the conference crown, this game would be meaningless in the national scope. Imagine that: the SEC title game ... Meaningless!

Anyway, my rant is over ... good feedback though, thanks.

Great thread though. Some good stuff.

i think alot of the ideas trown around in  here have merit but now lets look at what is the most likley kind of playoff sytem that the confrences would agree to

i think that you use two of the bowls not holding the national championship game have the top 4 teams in the bcs standings play for a chance to go for nc title that way doesnt hurt the bowl games just the number of avilible number of slots for the less deserving teams

but i will not hold my breath for any major changes to the bcs anytime soon or ever+

I pretty much agree and that is were we all lose the argument. It is probably pointless to continue, Dreaming or Hoping, but I am 41 years old and still dream and hope that Selma Hayek is secretly in love with me! So KEEP THE FAITH BROTHER! B&M till your blue in the face, they won't listen anyway, but what better do you have to do, go back to work?

What is the National Championship really about?  I hope it recognizes the best team to take the field in any given year.  Does it do that?  A strong argument is found in "no."  I hate, detest, revile USC.  WVU (and now UM) is among the most despicable programs, too.  But both played such strong games, overwhelming their opponents and making them look like Pop Warner misfits, that they would have certainly had a legitimate shot at beating LSU or OSU...or UGA or...you name it.  The National Championship is a political contest, not an athletic achievement.

And

What is the National Championship really about?  I hope it recognizes the best team to take the field in any given year.  Does it do that?  A strong argument is found in "no."  I hate, detest, revile USC.  WVU (and now UM) is among the most despicable programs, too.  But both played such strong games, overwhelming their opponents and making them look like Pop Warner misfits, that they would have certainly had a legitimate shot at beating LSU or OSU...or UGA or...you name it.  The National Championship is a political contest, not an athletic achievement.

And how

What is the National Championship really about?  I hope it recognizes the best team to take the field in any given year.  Does it do that?  A strong argument is found in "no."  I hate, detest, revile USC.  WVU (and now UM) is among the most despicable programs, too.  But both played such strong games, overwhelming their opponents and making them look like Pop Warner misfits, that they would have certainly had a legitimate shot at beating LSU or OSU...or UGA or...you name it.  The National Championship is a political contest, not an athletic achievement.

And how would a

What is the National Championship really about?  I hope it recognizes the best team to take the field in any given year.  Does it do that?  A strong argument is found in "no."  I hate, detest, revile USC.  WVU (and now UM) is among the most despicable programs, too.  But both played such strong games, overwhelming their opponents and making them look like Pop Warner misfits, that they would have certainly had a legitimate shot at beating LSU or OSU...or UGA or...you name it.  The National Championship is a political contest, not an athletic achievement.

And how would

What is the National Championship really about?&nbs