NYT & JB Follow-up on Playoffs

General NCS Football38

Good read from the NY Times regarding college football playoffs:

Despite pleas from fans, coaches and the news media, Division I-A football is nowhere near instituting a postseason like the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament or the N.F.L. playoffs. The idea is rarely the subject of formal discussions by those who essentially make the decisions: the 11 Division I-A conference commissioners and Kevin White, Notre Dame’s athletic director. They all see a need to protect the interests of the conferences, bowl organizations, college administrators and athletic directors, and the integrity of the regular season.

For more on the playoff topic, Jeff provides the following commentary:

Once again, the college football season will end with the clear-cut national champion that everyone in America claims that they long to see. Yet, once again fans and media all over the country whine about the need of a playoff system to (supposedly) create EXACTLY what they already have — a system to crown a National Champion based on the body of work of an entire season. I continue to be confused about the logic.

Almost every year we end up with a pretty clear National Champion. And almost every day of every year we have fans and media clamoring for the ‘need’ to give the 5th and the 6th and 7th and 8th best teams in America a shot at a National Championship without any understanding that these teams have already had their chance to play for a National Title — it is called the regular season.

We have some great conversations here on SFN, and the college football playoff argument is one of the best. I am not going to re-hash all of the points that I made in this entry and the entries linked within it but I think that it is very important for you to read that entry.

It is also very important for everyone to denote (and admit) that the (regular and bowl) season have WORKED again. You are getting EXACLTY what you claim to want — the two teams that performed most impressively throughout the season playing for a National Championship.

After USC’s throttling of Michigan yesterday – there is obviously no doubt about the results of this season. USC had two losses in this past regular season after winning a league that has proven it was over-rated through their bowl performance this year. NOBODY is clamoring that USC deserves a right to play for a National Title. What about multi-loss teams like Michigan? LSU? Notre Dame? Arkansas? Others? Of course these teams do not deserve a chance at a title when you compare their performance with that of Ohio State and Florida.

With this said — what is the complaint? Why do some of you lobby so hard to give schools a chance to win a title that you admit don’t deserve to even play for the title?!?

I harken back to previous comments that have played themselves out (again) this season:

Throughout the entire history of college football there have been times when two teams could lay claim to deserving a shot at a national championship after the regular season.

Throughout the entire history of college football there have been a few times when three teams could lay claim to deserving a shot at a national championship after the regular season.

Throughout the entire history of college football there have been very few times when four teams could lay claim to deserving a shot at a national championship after the regular season. This year ends up no different.

Why, then, do so many people WANT to give undeserving teams chances to win a National Championship?

If you want to argue about ‘Boise State’ – then argue somewhere else. When your body of work consists of the following schedule, then you forfeit any right to complain:

Sacramento State
Oregon State
at Wyoming
Hawaii
at Utah
Louisiana Tech
at New Mexico State

at Idaho
Fresno State
at San Jose State
Utah State
at Nevada
vs No. 7 Oklahoma

Boise State actually PROVES my point about ‘playoffs’!

How many of Boise State’s regular season games did you watch this year? The reason that you watched so few are because they played no interesting games. Get used to watching less football because there will most definitely be a lot less interesting games to watch. If you were so disinterested in Boise’s games, why then would you want to create a three month regular season where everyone schedules like Boise?

If a playoff system existed almost all teams would migrate towards the Boise State scheduling model to pad their records and avoid as much regular-season risk as possible. As it stands today, top teams realize that the regular season is their playoff and we therefore get super matchups like Texas-Ohio State; Michigan-Notre Dame; Florida State-Florida; Oklahoma-Oregon; etc.

With playoffs sitting at the end of the regular season there would be way too much risk for Michigan and Notre Dame to need to play during the season. Today, these teams NEED to play to potentially boost their regular season resume to help their rankings. In the future, losing such games while the Boise’s of the world are playing Sacramento State could keep them out of the playoffs. Say goodbye to college football’s regular season as you know it.

But, who needs a wonderful three-month season when you can make three weeks in December so much more important? Why not just shorten the game that we all love while you are at it? Oh yea…they’ve already succeeded in doing that.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

General NCS Football

38 Responses to NYT & JB Follow-up on Playoffs

  1. RedTerror29 01/02/2007 at 12:07 PM #

    If the six BCS conference champions were guaranteed spots in a playoff, which the conferences would certainly demand, then there’s no reason the above scenario would take place. For logistical reasons it would probably be a 8 team playoff, which means that only two at-large teams get in. Add a provision similar to the one today that lets in the highest ranked non-BCS team ranked higher than 12th (also probably due to the desire to get Notre Dame in).

    So teams have more to gain and less to lose by scheduling tough OOC games. Unlike today’s system where a loss almost kills your shot at a NC, OOC losses wouldn’t hurt you as long as you could win the conference. But they could really help you if you’re in the position Michigan and LSU are in this year. And if the seeding is determined using strength of schedule as a major component, it adds a further incentive. And for non-BCS schools, making the playoff would still be a longshot, so they to have a chance they would need to schedule some decent opponents.

    And I don’t think college football fans win with a system that excludes the likes of Boise State. They have a built a very legitimate program. They beat Hawaii this year (killed ASU in their bowl), Oregon St. (beat USC in the regular season who just whipped Michigan), and just beat Oklahoma (Big 12 champs). I’m not cursing the system for letting an undeserving team into a BCS game after watching the game last night. The ACC may be closer to the WAC than the SEC unfortunately.

    Everything you said about Boise St. could be said about NC State. College Football doesn’t need a Miami/Ohio St./USC monopoly to thrive. The NFL does just fine without rigging the system on the Patriots, Giants, and Cowboys behalf.

  2. StateFans 01/02/2007 at 12:21 PM #

    If the six BCS conference champions were guaranteed spots in a playoff, which the conferences would certainly demand, then there’s no reason the above scenario would take place.

    So, you want to go through the craziness of setting up a playoff and the not have the best teams play in the playoff?

    If the six BCS conference champions were guaranteed spots in a playoff, then you would never achieve what folks say that they want — “the best 8 teams getting a chance to play for a title.

    You would only get to pick TWO of the following teams this season:
    LSU
    Arkansas
    Auburn
    Notre Dame
    Michigan
    Boise State
    Texas
    California (Pac-10 Co-Champ)
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia

    You don’t think that you create the SAME — OR WORSE — controversy by leaving out all of the above teams except for two?

    Absolutely NOTHING gets solved in this scenario other than giving a Wake Forest or Louisville a chance to get hot and win a National Title that they don’t deserve compared to the performance of other teams throughout the year.
    Nothing?

  3. CaptainCraptacular 01/02/2007 at 12:24 PM #

    *If a playoff system existed almost all teams would migrate towards the Boise State scheduling model to pad their records and avoid as much regular-season risk as possible.*

    Come on now, Boise had scheduling control of only 4 of those games. Sacramento State, Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon State. Last years OOC schedule they had Georgia, Oregon State, Bowling Green and Portland State.

    Say what you want about how deserving Boise is and the pitfalls of a playoff system, but finding fault with their scheduling is a stretch. Not too many decent teams want to go to Boise so if they play anyone any good it will usually be on the road. And now that they’ve beaten Oklahoma, what good team would want to play them even on their own home field? A BCS school playing Boise is a no-win situation. Beat them and you were supposed to because they are a patsy, lose and be totally trashed by your fans for losing to Nobody State. Oregon State, which has done a home and home with them for the last 4 years or so is the only team with enough balls to go to Boise. Georgia was willing to give them a game in Athens but there is no way in hell they’d return the favor and go there.

    And even with the scheduling difficulty they face, they’ve still managed to schedule and to play 3 decent-to-good BCS schools OOC in the past 2 years (not including bowls), plus a Utah team not far removed from their Fiesta Bowl win. They could have gone a bit stronger by replacing Portland and Sacramento State, but then again they may have gotten stuck having to take those teams. Regardless, by OOC scheduling standards they are giving themselves some challenges, unlike a lot of other schools out there.

  4. Troy 01/02/2007 at 12:29 PM #

    Jeff, I agree with most of your arguement. No other sport in the world hinges on excellent team performance in each and every single regular season game to determine your chance at a title. In the pros, teams always have 1-2 let down games a year. In basketball, teams rarely show up for the second of back to back road games. In baseball, managers will sit 2/3 of their starting lineup for a day game after a night game.

    But, in college football, when USC loses to arch rival UCLA by the skin of their teeth, their season is basically shot. When Michigan loses to Ohio State (again), they don’t have a chance to avenge the loss. This is what adds excitement to every single week of the college football season, as is why 110,000 people will show up to watch a game.

    However, let me play devil’s advocate for a minute. I grew up a huge Penn State fan. Joe Paterno is one of the nation’s biggest advocates for a playoff. You know why? Because, of his 5 unbeaten, untied teams, only 1 was awarded the mythical national championship. He led PSU to undefeated regular seasons and bowl victories in 1968, 1969, 1972, 1986, and 1994. The only season where they were the national champion, 1986, is when they had the chance to prove it on the field and defeat the “unbeatable” Jimmy Johnson led Miami Hurricanes.

    Now, I realize the BCS is a huge improvement over the old system, where most recently in 1994 PSU had to play a 2-loss Oregon team in the Rose Bowl, while #1a Nebraska had a chance to beat #3 Miami in the Orange Bowl. But, there are still times, like in 2003, where there is only 1 unbeaten and several 1-loss teams. The unbeaten loses in the “title” game, and we end up with a split national title. Or, in 2004, when there are 3 unbeatens, but somehow the unbeaten team from the #1 conference (Auburn) gets left out in the cold to watch USC dismantle Oklahoma.

    There has to be a better way.

  5. BoKnowsNCS71 01/02/2007 at 1:03 PM #

    I think it’s a gven that we aren’t going to see a play off system because the Bowls and the BCS teams make to much money. Bowls are for a city’s economy. Playoffs are tough — how many of you would travel say Jacksonville for the ACC playoffs and then a week end afew weeks later in Florida, California, or Arizona and then a week later to another one of those sites. Selling tickets and making money is a part of this (although the TV contract might make up for ticket sale loss).

    As for Boise State, regardless of who they played or did not play, they are obviously good and deserve as much a shot as BYU did many years ago when they won a share of the national championship. And if Florida wins over the Ohio State — are we really going to enjoy saying Florida is #1? I would rather see a co-championship and let everyone be a little bit happy and a little bit pissed then just bless Florida for winning all but 1 of its games in the SEC.

    Maybe the Bowls plus 1 is the answer. Let the season play out permit one more game in between the Superbowl to settle it. But then there’s that cost. Only the elite will be able to afford the cost and the time off.

    Only the fans are interested in a NCAA BB type system. And with so much money involved — who is going to listen to us? Not the NCAA.

  6. RedTerror29 01/02/2007 at 1:03 PM #

    I don’t think getting the best 8 teams is the primary concern of a playoff. Particularly when who the best 8 teams are is determined in an arbitrary manner. We’ve been hearing for months how great Michigan is this year, but they didn’t prove it on the field. In this year’s scenario, LSU and Notre Dame would have been left out. I’m supposed to cry over two-loss teams not making a playoff? The reasoning for auto berths for the conf champs is simple and twofold. Reason A: the BCS conferences all get their payday (requisite to any playoff system). Reason B: the value of the regular season is not diminished. If your primary concern is keep college football’s great regular season intact (and I think the 8 team auto berth system would only make it better) and the LSU/Notre Dames/Wisconsins of the world today don’t get a shot at the national title, why do you care if they don’t get a shot tomorrow?

  7. BJD95 01/02/2007 at 1:06 PM #

    IMHO, only 16 makes sense. 8 leaves too little opportunity for Cinderella stories, and hurts the true power conferences that would gobble up most of the 8 extra at-large bids in a 16-team system.

  8. theTHRILL 01/02/2007 at 1:22 PM #

    JB – serious question: Do you think Div. 1-AA has it backwards and would be better served going to a BCS-type system?

  9. choppack1 01/02/2007 at 1:48 PM #

    theTHRILL – Let us know when 100K show up for Division 1-AA games. How many playoff games did you go to?

    BJD – I agree w/ you that if they do a playoff it should be 16 or 32 games, but then, the regular seasons means very little. Middle of the road BCS schools won’t want to schedule tough games because they have a better shot at getting in w/ 9-2 or 10-1 record than they do a 8-3 record. (I’m assuming that if we move to a playoff system the 12th game is dropped.)

    This whole thing is primarily media-generated. And if Jo Pa and the other college coaches want a playoff system so bad, why don’t they agree to donate 1/2 of their salary to a fan traveling fund so the fans who show up for the defacto playoff season and bowl games now can afford to attend the extra 3 games…

  10. Cosmo96 01/02/2007 at 1:58 PM #

    Why not just have the Chicago Bears play the San Diego Chargers next week and call that the Super Bowl? By that rationale, Pittsburg would have never won the Super Bowl last year, even though they proved that they could beat Indianapolis on the field. NC State would have never won a national title in ’83. But that’s why you have playoffs.

    Who cares what Boise State’s schedule was this year? If they could prove that they could beat Ohio State or Florida, wouldn’t they deserve a championship? They’ve proven they can beat Oklahoma, so it’s not that far-fetched. With a playoff in place, even if national title contenders schedule out-of-conference cupcakes, they’re going to have to play someone good eventually (when the playoffs roll around) or else they will have proven–on the field–that they don’t deserve a shot.

  11. RAWFS 01/02/2007 at 2:01 PM #

    The bowl system will eventually collapse under its own weight.

    You make note of Boise State — who only beat Oklahoma, thank you very much — as being undeserving. I hope you enjoyed the end of that game last night. 😀

  12. wufpack 01/02/2007 at 2:02 PM #

    Serious question here. How is everyone making so much money on the bowl system? Nobody cares about these games. They are not watched that well on TV. Only fans of the schools and the most die-hard of college football fans care about most of the bowl games. The BCS game last night BARELY outdrew a CSI:Miami rerun. A freakin’ rerun of freakin’ CSI:Miami. I am a huge, HUGE college basketball fan, but there is very little that excites me about, say, a Wichita State-Arizona regular season game. I might would watch some of it, but would always be looking for something better to watch or do. Make that game what is essentially a post-season exhibition game, and I care even less. That’s basically what the bowls are. But if that game were in the NCAA tournament, you couldn’t drag me away from the TV. I just don’t see how so much money is made on these bowl games. Personally, I don’t care about going to a playoff system because of some need for a true national champion. I want a playoff system for pure entertainment value. I feel like I’m getting screwed out of seeing what should be an amazingly entertaining set of football games for a bunch of games where 99% of the population could give a crap about the outcomes.

  13. Dan 01/02/2007 at 2:03 PM #

    Ohio State has proved they are better than the rest of the Big 10 and Texas. That is it. Last I checked Texas couldnt even win their conference. Oklahoma did. Last I checked Michiagn played a pansy schedule except for OSU and USC exposed them for what they were. (Cue Denny Green) USC lost to Oregon State who were ROUTED by Boise State who also beat the Big 12 champion last night.

    Jeff, your “clear cut” NC is resides only in the fantasy world of the subjective. If there is a consensus among voters, people are idiotic enough to think they are right. That security exists in the minds of voters. It surely isnt an objective world, because the only way to satisfy the argument objectively is to have actual games. Not opinion. Only games can objectively tell you how teams match up. Hell, that is why we play the games to begin with.

    I cannot believe such a ridiculously arbritrary and, quite frankly, bookish-to-the-point-of-being-nerdy practice like voting is allowed to decide a American Football Championship. It’s football damnit! There is no voting in football. Are we all metrosexual pansies where voting is better than playing game? Go hit someone to decide it. Let the kids and the coaches decide it on the damn field. Not some jackass voter who has to resort to T.O. and other “off the field” articles because he doesnt have enough knowledge of the game to write an actual analysis of what happens on the field. Better yet, its even funnier when SID’s determine the champ. Yeah, that’s smash mouth football: A geek at a desk.

    Jeff, you’ve been conditioned to think that college football is somehow different than every other sport. You think that in college football the team with the best record is the best team regardless of which BCS conference they reside. Well, professional sports tell us that isnt true. How many times does the #1 seed ever win the championship in pro team sports? How many times are the pundits correct? Rarely at best. And we have far more data on how teams compare in pro sports given the fewer teams and increased cross divisional play. But everyone is still always wrong. How much more wrong are they then when it comes to something inherently more complicated? Why would anyone EVER think they are right? Thank God we dont allow voting in the NFL or the Colts would have at least two rings by now. We all know how that played out in the real world of the objective. The world where people lace up shoes and put on the pads. Not in the voters world where we sharpen our pencils instead. If they dont want a playoff, fine, but do away with the whole National Championship verbage. Its a farce. Its a damn popularity contest. Nothing else.

    Voting in football? You have got to be freaking kidding me. What’s next? Skirts? Pocket Protectors? Hell, why even play the regular season. Let’s just vote on it based on the overall recruiting rankings of the last five years. We’ll just decide conference titles that way. This way there will be no injuries.

    “Throughout the entire history of college football there have been very few times when four teams could lay claim to deserving a shot at a national championship after the regular season.”

    Only if you put your faith in the farce that writers are always correct. The same writers that prove that they are ALWAYS more wrong than right. And in the incorrect notion that a #1 seed is always the best team in the playoff.

    “This year ends up no different.”

    No argument there.

  14. RedTerror29 01/02/2007 at 2:16 PM #

    A few quick thoughts on money:

    Bowl games are relatively cheap to put on. TV loves them because of that. They don’t have to have high ratings to be worthwhile. And the current systems fills up a lot of airtime.

    I think a playoff would make more money total than the bowl system. The problem is that some of the benefactors of the bowl system would be hurt by the move so they fight it. Take ESPN. They own five bowls, so they make money off that. They show several games, particularly the lower-tier bowls. The bowls give them something to talk about. And they get to talk ad naseum about how we need a playoff and be so arrogant as to have a ‘mock’ playoff and act like they could actually accurately predict the results of those games.

    I think we’ve actually moved farther away from a playoff the past few years. The BCS system has been shored up. A 12th game has been added – strengthening the too many games argument against the playoff cause dropping the 12th game won’t fly cause it means more money for everyone. And the additional BCS bowl means there are now 5 games held in the traditional big 4. If, for an 8 game playoff, you play the first round at homesites and the semi-final and championship games at existing BCS bowlsites, that’s only 3. So not only does sombody get dropped, but another game is taken away.

  15. theTHRILL 01/02/2007 at 2:30 PM #

    Choppack – Is there an answer in your witty response? You don’t think 100K+ would show up at the Horseshoe if OSU hosted a first or second round game against, say, LSU?

    I think Div. I-AA does a fabulous job of organizing a playoff system, and I think a similar layout for I-A would be amazingly successful.

  16. VaWolf82 01/02/2007 at 2:42 PM #

    Bowl games produce revenue three ways:
    – ticket sales
    – TV broadcasting rights
    – Corporate sponsorship

    How do you propose to keep the corporate sponsorship money flowing if you do away with the bowls that have their name on it? How are you going to generate more money with a play-off system while you reduce one of the main streams of revenue with the current system?

    I just can’t get that excited about a playoff system. With one exception, the BCS has produced the championship game that made the most sense. The year Nebraska got in without even qualifying for the Big 12 Championship was the one glaring failure of the current system.

  17. BJD95 01/02/2007 at 2:56 PM #

    I think ad revenue for a playoff (at least the semifinals and finals) would rival that of the Divisional Championships and the Super Bowl. It would be HUGE.

    I also predict that as the bowls get more and more corporate, you see interest plateau, at best. The more the “tradition” is diluted, the less nostalgia you’ll see for the antiquated system.

    I’ve watched far less bowl action than regular season college football. Yes, in some sense that DOES prove part of Jeff’s point about the regular season being so vital. But I didn’t just watch games with national title implications, meaning I would still watch if there were a playoff. And isn’t it fundamentally backwards for the post-season to be LESS interesting and compelling than the regular season?

  18. RAWFS 01/02/2007 at 3:08 PM #

    To those that say the regular season would mean very little in a playoff system, please do me the kindness of explaining the value of the mostly ridiculously weak OOC schedules we see already.

    And do me the kindness of explaining how basketball’s RS has no value.

    Thanks!

  19. LSUTigerFan 01/02/2007 at 3:16 PM #

    “Almost every year we end up with a pretty clear National Champion.”

    The past three years, we’ve had a “clear cut” national champion only once. This year was one game away from being the biggest abomination in the history of the BCS, and it wasn’t the “system” that prevented that, it was the inconsistency of an over-rated USC team.

    USC winning against UCLA, in a game they clearly should have dominated, would have created three potential untenable outcomes for the BCS:
    a) A one loss Florida team who faced the toughest schedule in the nation and lost to a top 10 team would be left out thereby shortchanging the SEC in one way or another for three of the last four years.
    b) Michigan would play back-to-back games against Ohio State for the national title with both teams being from the same conference, which played no meaningful games versus either of the conferences of the other potential title contenders (i.e. SEC or Pac 10).
    c) Media favorite USC could have been (rightfully this time) left out of the title game for the 2nd time in 4 years.

    So the “system” didn’t work unless the “system” had USC take one for the team. For the “system” to work, the “system” actually has to proactively account for a scenario and impose an action. The system did nothing but rely upon luck.

    In the 1980’s before the BCS and the Bowl coalition, did the “system” work, when for 10 straight years from 1980 to 1989, we had a consensus national champion? No, the system was lucky. In 1990 and 1991 under the same “system”, we had split national titles. The reality is that we had no system then, and it “worked” better than what we have in place now.

    So for that ten-year period the lack of a system was 100% effective in choosing the national champion. Now, since the BCS was put in place in 1998, the system has chosen the participants without controversy less than 50% of the time with significant controversy in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006. Not exactly a “system” that works.

    Finally, choosing two teams to play in a national title game is no less arbitrary that choosing 4, 8, or 16. Nor is it less arbitrary that choosing one. At least if you wait until after the bowls to make the choice, we have many more games including a number of inter-conference match-ups to base that decision on.

    Whether you are for a playoff or not, the current system is an abomination.

  20. LSUTigerFan 01/02/2007 at 3:23 PM #

    Also, if you think the current system works, head on over to ESPN and vote in their poll

    http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncf/index

    The poll asks, if Florida beats Ohio State, who should be the national champion? Right now, Florida is only receiving 55% of the vote with Boise State and USC of all teams, being the other options.

    If a two loss USC team gets the AP vote over Florida, that would really be a system that works.

  21. Dan 01/02/2007 at 3:29 PM #

    “How do you propose to keep the corporate sponsorship money flowing if you do away with the bowls that have their name on it? How are you going to generate more money with a play-off system while you reduce one of the main streams of revenue with the current system?”

    First off. We all go to bowl games now if we are lucky enough to get invited. We’d still go even if our team wasnt in the NC playoff. You might lose the bottom tier bowls during the reshuffle. Hell, if there is a playoff next year and NC State wins 9 games, loses in the Championship Game and settles for the Peach, will we still not go? The playoff is in additional to the bowls. Not in place of. Yeah, we will all shed tears for the Blue Carpet Bowl.

    Second. A National Chamionship playoff TV contract will blow the BCS contract out of the friggin’ water. The problem of course is that it gets divided among all teams and not just 6 conferences. Still, a playoff doesnt take money out of the system. It adds money to it.

  22. Dan 01/02/2007 at 3:33 PM #

    ps. Logan is officially a BC Eagle.

  23. BoKnowsNCS71 01/02/2007 at 3:34 PM #

    Bowl revenues — In addition to:
    Bowl games produce revenue three ways:
    – ticket sales
    – TV broadcasting rights
    – Corporate sponsorship

    Add — revenue produced due to the influx of visitors to a city for travel, taxi service, rental cars, gas sales, hotel stays, dining out, alcohol purchases, sale of team merchandise with bowl name on it, tips, and all other purchases made while visiting the city, local and federal tax generated from all the above. Bowls bring money into a city and that’s why there are 32 or so. Heck — that’s why ECU wants NCSU and UNC to play in Greenville — it’s a nice shot in the arm for the economy.

    I’ve watched almost every bowl game — or most of each. Part of it was part of a bowl pool, and partly because there is just not much else I like to watch on television. Most of these “bad” teams are also pretty interesting to watch. I saw more offense watching some MAC and WAC teams than I saw in the ACC this year (defense is another question — lol)
    A bad bowl game is better then a re-run of CSI or Law and Order and to me a lot better than most sit coms. So there is an audience (somewhere for all these games “no one cares about”)

  24. tractor57 01/02/2007 at 3:46 PM #

    And there is another concept I heard years ago. The contention was that the bowl system wouldn’t be replaced as with the current system there were multiple “winners” while a playoff would have only one “winner”. I think when you combine that idea with the well established bowl system (the money from corporate sponsorships and the like) it will take a huge outcry to make any real changes.

  25. RedTerror29 01/02/2007 at 3:48 PM #

    ^What is this, tee ball?

1 2

Leave a Reply