Michigan v. Ohio State: Will they meet twice this year? - Page 8

Well, I'm kinda ambivalent about the whole situation. One the one hand I'd like to see all the B10 teams win, but I also love to see UM lose

IMO its a clear argument for a playoff. USC looked like they could have beaten anyone today, OSU included.

No arguments from me. There's no excuse for not having a 4 or 8 game playoff. Too many great teams (Boise State, anyone?) have been robbed of their chance to prove themselves.

As Churchill once said to the Canadian Parliament: Some Chicken! Some Neck!


This is really why they play the game. I don't know that Boise pulls it off on another night. It took a lucky break for OU to wake up, but they were great after they did.

OU and LSU consistently do the least with the most talent. They'd played really well this year with some adversity, but it just seemed like they weren't really ready for the game. It was a strange game to watch as it seemed like OUs players were at times men among boys but then they seemed to sleepwalk and BSU would get huge gains on routine plays, a clear example was the 36 yard pass that helped set up the hook & ladder.

I don't think Boise State would have made an eight-team playoff field. Presumably, such a field would consist of the six BCS conference champions and the two remaining teams with the highest rankings. The fifth BCS bowl was added so that teams like Boise State would have a chance to play in one.

If a playoff existed, the championship game might match up USC with LSU. I'm not sure if having the two hottest teams at the end of the season play in the championship is preferable to having the two most consistent teams play.

they should scrap the bcs and have an 8-team playoff between the teams with the best records in the nation. the takes all of the rankings and so-called expert analysis out of the equation. if a team like boise st. does not deserve a shot at the national title even after going UNDEFEATED through their season, they really have no business being in division 1. either they need to make division 1 much smaller (as they do in pro soccer), or they need to treat all division 1 teams as equals.

That wouldn't make sense, because you'd be penalizing teams for playing stronger opponents when you should be rewarding them for doing so. Teams would schedule the worst opponents possible in the non-conference then. Assuming you did that, though, the playoff order would be: 1. Ohio State 2. Boise State 3. Florida 4. Michigan 5. Wisconsin 6. Louisville 7. Oklahoma 8. Wake Forest USC and LSU wouldn't make the field in your playoff. Does that make any sense to you, as those two would probably be the second and third best teams in the country? Interestingly enough, in your playoff, BSU and OU would play in the first round. I would predict: OSU 41 WF 10 BSU 43 OU 42 (heh) UF 31 UL 28 UW 21 UM 17 UF 35 BSU 14 (nightmare matchup for Boise) OSU 31 UW 28 (Sort of like the time they lost in the Maurice Clarett NC year, although UW has dominated OSU of late, this is probably a pickem on a neutral field and OSU has found a way to win this year, and I think they probably win 6 of 10 against UW on a neutral field) So we'd see exactly the same title game in your playoff. OSU 35 UF 10

You simply can't ignore strength of schedule and strength of conference. Teams that go through the SEC or the Big 10 simply play a tougher schedule.

Even in the NCAA basketball tourney the teams are seeded by ranking and SOS. Yes, it's somewhat subjective, but so is scheduling. You can't favor teams who dodge playing the tough games.

i still say that division 1 is too big if a school can go undefeated and not play for the title. it's a no brainer to me. let me pose this question: does anyone know the ncaa method for determining the post-season in men's soccer? or men's volleyball? or track? how do they have a national champ every year without a big controversy? in california they have a state football champ every year and as far as i know there is no controversy over who gets to play in the game. why is this different from the ncaa?

In CIF the 10 league commissioners decide who makes the finals, and this year there was plenty of controversy. De La Salle in Norcal nearly always makes the finals due to their reputation as a football powerhouse, but this year their team was weaker and still made it over what people thought were more deserving teams. This is potentially the worst example you could have used. California also has THREE champs every year.

The point of strength of schedule is that Boise State wouldn't have been undefeated if they had to play the same schedule as any of the teams in the top 10.

that's why i said, "as far as i know". i don't keep up with american football, much less high school football. my question still stands on how they determine the champ of the other sports. and we don't know for sure that boise st. would not have gone undefeated if they had to play, say, usc's schedule. the game is not played on paper. it's played on the field.

ask any european who the best club soccer teams in the world are. they will make a list of european teams, because the big money players are in europe, and they assume that the best team in the world is the european champion. however, every year there is a game played in tokyo to determine the world champion, and more often than not, the south american team defeats the european team. you have to go on what happens on the field. it's that simple.

It's irrelevant anyways, because any system to determine the national championship will contain strength of schedule. To be honest, I'm not sure Boise State would even have a winning record with USC's schedule.

that's my question. how do they do it in track? volleyball? gymnastics? and strength of schedule doesn't have to play a part if you make division 1 smaller. that's your bias. everyone has their bias. the idea is to take it out of the equation.

Most divisions use reserve spots for conference champions, then have "at large" spots that are determined by a selection committee. However, track is totally different because it's an individual sport. Make Division 1 smaller? lol Do you know what rules college football? $$$. The big conferences have the money and will always dominate the teams playing in the playoffs. This is less of an issue in other sports/divisions because none of them have the money that college football (and basketball) generate. No other sports have this type of revenue generation.


It's not only my bias, it's the way things are done. If you don't like it, write to your university president or something. I think there will be a playoff at some point in time, but the at large participants will absolutely be based on strength of schedule.