Okay, bottom line, what's wrong with Plus One?

[Van]

{Had to throw that "bottom line" mention in there for PSUFAN and Roofer... }

I keep reading all of these Playoff scenarios and then there's people saying they're fine with the BCS and ever and anon the debate continues.

I've also heard some people like TiC preface their Playoff proposals with, "I don't like Plus One either, so..."

I don't get it. I don't see a single realistic flaw with Plus One. It is the simplest and most direct route to arrive at that which we all seem to want, a championship won on the field in a final "playoff" game pitting the obvious two best and most deserving teams from the entire season.

It also preserves a little bit of that "controversy/debate" element that most people seem to agree is actually good for CF. It does this by keeping the pairings open for those four exclusive seeds. In most years there's never more than three teams tops that can realistically be included in any debate of who deserves to play in the title game, so what are we really looking at here?

We're looking at the possibility of a nationwide debate centering around that fourth slot, and maybe the third and second slots as well. (In some years there's a definite #1 by regular season's end...)

So, we get to fight over the bottom slot or two. We already do that now anyway so no biggie there.

Also, rather than force CF and the bowls and the school presidents and everybody else involved to approve and implement a huge revamping of the current system in order to institute an all new Playoff format featuring eight or even sixteen teams (something we all know will likely never happen for those very reasons), we only add one game.

One game, featuring the two winners. You'd still have a much shorter season than the college baseball or basketball seasons. That single extra game could either be the following week after the BCS bowls or it could even be moved to the Saturday before the Super Bowl so we'd have one full on national holiday/orgy in celebration of All Things Football!

College Super Bowl on Saturday...
NFL Super Bowl on Sunday...

We all know the Almighty Dollar drives this and every other bus and the idea of a College Super Bowl would be a money maker on the grandest of scales. We keep all the current bowls and we add one new giant one.

All the same money we have now plus one huge extra money maker.

The College game location would rotate each season, just like it does now for the BCS title game. We could possibly even throw a bone to a rebuilding New Orleans by making N.O. the permanent home of the game.

Thing is, regardless, it's just one extra game and it answers any and all issues we've had with the old way of doing things and this recent BCS way of doing things.

Seriously. In what season have we ever had any real question about who should've been the national champ following the bowl season, with that question involving more than two teams?

All those split national championship years from the 70's, 80's and 90's?

Two teams.

2003, with USC and LSU? Last year, with USC and Auburn?

Same deal. By the end of the bowl season there's never more than two teams tops with a legitimate national title argument so why do we need to complicate things more than necessary by coming up with anything more than a simple Plus One solution involving only the two logical teams?

TiC and anybody else who doesn't like Plus One, this is your forum. Spell it out. Let's hear the holes in Plus One that make it less desireable to you than any other option. I'll keep an open mind here so do your best to change my mind about this...

[War Stoops]

The Plus One format solves nothing unless its 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 with the winners playing in the extra game. Otherwise, it's an absurd idea and I'm continually shocked by the sheer number of people pimping it. Let's go back in time and look at the BCS Championship Games since 1998. What if the Plus One format had been in place all along...

1998 - Tennessee vs. Florida State: FSU backs into this game via late losses by UCLA and Kansas State. Under the plus one format, Tennessee is rewarded for going 13-0 by...playing another one loss team!? But which one? Wisconsin? Plus One fails.

1999 - Florida State vs. Virginia Tech: Once again, the Plus One would have forced Florida State to beat Va Tech plus another elite team, probably Nebraska who was coming off it's then-annual ass-raping of Tennessee. Fair? Nope. Plus One fails.

2000 - Oklahoma vs. Florida State: Are you starting to see a pattern here? OU beats all comers, including mighty Florida State. Because of the brilliant Plus One format, the Sooners must now suit it up against Miami, who only had to beat the 7th-ranked Gators in its "semi-final" despite having one more loss than the Sooners. Hey Washington, Fuck You! Plus One fails again.

2001 - Miami vs. Nebraska: See 1998. Plus One fails.

2002 - Ohio State vs. Miami: See 1999. Plus One fails.

2003 - LSU vs. Oklahoma: On the surface, you might think that this is finally the year where the Plus One would have saved the day, right? Wrong! Oklahoma, the #1 BCS team had to play its "semi-final" against #2 LSU in New Orleans. Meanwhile, #3 USC got to play #4 Michigan in Pasadena. Here, the Plus One format completely screws LSU and Oklahoma by making them play the tougher semi-final. Plus One fails miserably.

2004 - USC vs. Oklahoma: For the seventh consecutive year, the Plus One format falls on its ass. Auburn gets to play #8 Virginia Tech in the middle of SEC country, avoiding #4 Texas, while Oklahoma and USC go head-to-head (or ass-to-foot as it turned out) in Miami. USC's reward for embarrassing the Sooners? Congratulations, now you get to play Auburn. Plus One fails.

For fuck’s sake, please stop suggesting this horrible idea. Four-team playoff? OK. But not Plus One, which makes a bad situation worse.

Now, if you're suggesting that we go back to the old bowl tie-ins, with the Championship game to follow, I may be less venomous because that’s basically not changing anything at all.

[indyfrisco]

2004 - USC vs. Oklahoma: For the seventh consecutive year, the Plus One format falls on its ass. Auburn gets to play #8 Virginia Tech in the middle of SEC country, avoiding #4 Texas, while Oklahoma and USC go head-to-head (or ass-to-foot as it turned out) in Miami. USC's reward for embarrassing the Sooners? Congratulations, now you get to play Auburn. Plus One fails.

And to top that one off, you still have an undefeated Utah team that will be saying "What about us???"

[Van]

War Stoops, in each case your gripe centers around the #1 team having to play another game against a potentially better team in order to finally win it...

I don't see any of those examples as being a "miserable failure", I see 'em all as being exactly the way it should be: Take on all comers, beat the best and you're the champ.

You have to play one extra game, and maybe your semi final match up isn't as favorable as the other bracket's winner?

Too bad. Happens in the NCAA Final Four all the time. Happens in all tournaments and in all sports all the time. Bottom line, to win the whole thing that other "easier" bracket winner still has to ultimately get through you, and vice versa.

It all comes out in the wash. The pairings don't matter. If you lose because your match up wasn't favorable then you don't deserve it anyway because that team that beat you just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that no matter what happens later YOU are not worthy of being the national champ.

You can set up to where it's #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 but really it doesn't matter who plays who in the semis.

All that matters is getting the USC-LSU and USC-Auburn match ups, with a minimum of fuss. Who each team had to beat to get to that match up is inevitably irrelevant to a real champion.

USC had to beat OU while Auburn only had to beat Va Tech?

Cool. Auburn still hasn't won the title. They still have to beat USC so regardless of what happened in the semis USC now gets Auburn on equal footing in a title game. Auburn's supposed advantage won't win them that next game any more than it would've won them that game had they been assigned to play USC in the semis...

Your "miserable failures" only further underscore just how right Plus One really is. All the lame excuses wash away once you're finally holding the trophy.

I'd love to hear some team bitch that it wasn't "fair" that they had to play USC or OU in the semis while somebody else "only" had to play Va Tech or Michigan.

Oh, really? You think you still have a real national title bitch even though you already lost? Who's to say that Auburn wouldn't have kicked your ass in the semis too? Fact is, you lost.

Which game? Which match up?

Doesn't matter. You lost. Win, and keep winning, or you're not the national champ. There will only be one team left standing when this is all said and done and pal, you got knocked the fuck out. Doesn't matter who did it or in which game they did it 'cause...

....you...ain't...the champ. That much is now clear. The team that beat you and then beat the next team, they answer to nobody now and all excuses fall on deaf ears. They beat the best.

The team that beat you went on to lose in the final? You didn't even beat the losing team so kindly STFU...

Bullet proof.

[Van]

2004 - USC vs. Oklahoma: For the seventh consecutive year, the Plus One format falls on its ass. Auburn gets to play #8 Virginia Tech in the middle of SEC country, avoiding #4 Texas, while Oklahoma and USC go head-to-head (or ass-to-foot as it turned out) in Miami. USC's reward for embarrassing the Sooners? Congratulations, now you get to play Auburn. Plus One fails.

And to top that one off, you still have an undefeated Utah team that will be saying "What about us???"

There's everybody's fan favorite, the controversy/debate over who got that fourth slot, Va Tech, Utah, Texas or Cal...

Still they're only arguing about who's fourth.

Fourth. Not #1, just who's fourth. Any other year they don't even have a shot at the title from the fourth slot. Whichever one of those teams gets the nod for that fourth slot, they should just count themselves lucky. The other teams that get slighted out of that fourth slot, too bad. Shoulda been #1, 2 or 3 and then you don't have to worry about it.

[War Stoops]

Van, it sounds to me like you are asking for a playoff. That is exactly what I'd like to see be it 4, 8, or even 16 teams. But for you to say that having #1 vs. #2 in one semi and #3 vs. #8 in the other qualifies as a legitimate playoff is laughable. Your analogy with the NCAA Basketball Tournament doesn't hold water because the "easier path" you're talking about happens from the second round on because of upsets. March Madness is a proper tournament where the top teams are rewarded with high seeds and easier opponents. The correct analogy (using the current Men's BB AP Poll) would have #1 Duke play #2 Texas in the first round of the tournament while #3 Connecticut plays Tennessee-Chatanooga or the like.

Until it's #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3, Plus One is not fair. I hear what you're saying about the best team surviving but if you're going to have the extra game anyway, why not structure it like a playoff?

Save the OU / Auburn smack. I was trying to point out a possible injustice for USC, not OU.

[Van]

WS, I have no problem with pitting #'s 1 and 4 and #'s 2 and 3 against each other in the BCS semis. I don't think it matters but I don't mind either.

A lot of times the #4 seed might actually be the hotter and more dangerous team than #2 or 3 so if we're to get hung up on seedings I think it'd be funnier than hell some year to hear a Mack Brown lobbying the media to get a more favorable lower seeding...

:-)

We don't need a "playoff" above and beyond what's already in place...Plus One. If one wants to call that a four team playoff, okay.

"Fair"? It's not an issue. You have to win both games anyway. The order in which you meet certain teams is irrelevant. One way or the other you're not going to be able to skate to a title without having beaten a monster who already won their BCS semi...

[War Stoops]

Mack would never do something like that...

[Terry in Crapchester]

Van, since you called me out specifically, I'll respond.

As for Plus One, it'd be a huge improvement over the status quo. But ultimately, I favor a different system for two reasons: (1) Plus One will not eliminate all controversy; and (2) more importantly, an alternative system would make the postseason more interesting.

If you had Plus One this year, here's what it would look like:

Rose Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 tOSU
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Penn State

Winners meet in the Plus One game.

Oregon still bitching about being left out, passed over for a 2-loss Ohio State team.

Now, if my proposal were implemented, here's what we'd be looking at:

Sugar Bowl Bracket

#1 Texas vs. #16 UCLA at Sun Bowl
#8 Miami vs. #9 Auburn at Champps Sports Bowl

Winners match up in Cotton Bowl

#4 Ohio State vs. #13 Alabama at Liberty Bowl
#5 Oregon vs. #12 LSU at Insight Bowl

Winners match up in Capital One Bowl

Orange Bowl Bracket

#6 Notre Dame vs. #11 West Virginia at Independence Bowl
#3 Penn State vs. #14 TCU at Peach Bowl

Winners match up in Gator Bowl

#7 Georgia vs. #10 Virginia Tech at Outback Bowl
#2 USC vs. #15 Texas Tech at Holiday Bowl

Winners match up in Fiesta Bowl

Note that I switched the seedings of Texas and USC to avoid two regular-season rematches in the first round (Texas-Texas Tech and USC-UCLA).

In this case, no bitching about Oregon -- they're in. Hell, every one-loss team is in, even West Virginia and TCU. And for that matter, every two-loss team save one (Louisville) is in. No team with more than two losses is in. As for Louisville, if memory serves they had the weakest SOS of these seventeen teams (16 teams in playoff + Louisville), with the possible exception of TCU (both were bottom ten in Division 1-A). This is about as close to bullet-proof this year as a playoff gets, not saying it would be the same every year. And even then, you only had to switch the seedings of two teams to avoid any first-round rematches, and those were two of the teams who finished closest to one another in the final BCS standings.

These teams will all be playing in the postseason in any event, no one is suggesting changing that. Under this proposal, at least they're playing in games having an impact upon the national championship.

As for not needing more than four teams to decide the championship, do we really need 65 teams to decide the NCAA basketball championship? Of course not, but one of the reasons the NCAA tournament is so exciting is the inclusion of so many teams and the potential for early upsets. Same here. Plus, you get to see some exciting matchups that you don't see during the regular season. If you like offense, you have to be drooling over, among others, USC-Taco Tech and Texas-UCLA. The USC-Taco matchup in particular looks like it could produce a basketball-type final score.

Just my two cents.

[SoCalTrjn]

Thats an awful lot of flying around the country at a weeks notice just to make bowl people happy, the first round games should be at the higher ranked teams home stadiums.... and I would kick Oregon, LSU and anybody else who had an OOC game vs a 1aa or lower team out of contention

[Van]

TiC, Oregon's barely making a peep that they didn't make it into the BCS. Lord knows they wouldn't complain too much about not getting the invite to Plus One.

Besides, controversy?

Not really. Oregon already lost handily to USC so they don't deserve a chance at the national title. USC already determined at least that much for them.

Meanwhile there's a multitude of problems with your scenario but the most glaring is the obvious fact that the majority of the teams you listed have no business playing for a national title, period.

TCU? Alabama? WVA? Taco Tech? LSU? UCLA?

On what planet should those teams ever deserve the right to possibly deprive USC or Texas of what they earned all season long?

Are we trying to determine a true national champion here or are we simply trying to create a "feel good" post season tourney where everybody gets a pat on the back and another fat paycheck and tradition can go to hell?

[quacker backer]

hell Van that is such a stupid arguement

conference championships are just as stupid for the same reason that USC and Oregon should not play again...


as for the Ducks playing Montana this year......it is only because Indiana and Texas El Paso bowed out this season so they had to fill out the season with Houston and Montana...

[Van]

hell Van that is such a stupid arguement

conference championships are just as stupid for the same reason that USC and Oregon should not play again...

I completely agree with you so how is what such a stupid argument??

[War Stoops]

Doesn't matter. You lost. Win, and keep winning, or you're not the national champ. There will only be one team left standing when this is all said and done and pal, you got knocked the fuck out. Doesn't matter who did it or in which game they did it 'cause...

....you...ain't...the champ. That much is now clear. The team that beat you and then beat the next team, they answer to nobody now and all excuses fall on deaf ears. They beat the best.

Meanwhile there's a multitude of problems with your scenario but the most glaring is the obvious fact that the majority of the teams you listed have no business playing for a national title, period.

TCU? Alabama? WVA? Taco Tech? LSU? UCLA?

On what planet should those teams ever deserve the right to possibly deprive USC or Texas of what they earned all season long?

Wow, Van. Contradict much? In reply to me you say that fair seeding doesn't matter because you have to win it on the field anyway. Then, in reply to someone else, you say that its unfair to force Texas and USC to face possible upsets from West Virginia and the like. What happened to "tough luck, you lost they won"?

For your next trick, you say Oregon doesn't deserve to gripe about being out of the top 4 because they already lost to the #1 team in the regular season. But your very system would include an Ohio State team with losses to both #2 and #3.

Do they make special sneakers for back-peddlers such as yourself?

[Van]

WS, fair seeding doesn't matter once it's down to the Plus One participants.

Just them.

Nobody else even matters beyond the Top Four, is the point.

No contradictions whatsoever. No two loss team should even be getting a sniff at a national title, period.

[Cicero]

I think the best system would be the Top 4, PLUS ONE. I dont feel that expanding the field to 8 or 16 is a good idea b/c it would cut down the reg season to 9-10 games.

[Van]

I think the best system would be the Top 4, PLUS ONE.

Exactly.

[War Stoops]

No contradictions whatsoever. No two loss team should even be getting a sniff at a national title, period.

Except #4, Ohio State, right?

[RadioFan]

On what planet should those teams ever deserve the right to possibly deprive USC or Texas of what they earned all season long?

On the same planet where Indianapolis and Seattle/Carolina aren't just placed in the Superbowl immediately following the regular season.

Regular season would get a team into the tournament, as well as a high seed, and possibly a shot at playing at/near home.

[Van]

Bah.

Let the regular season continue to matter. Would anyone really buy it at this point if suddenly UCLA or LSU won a couple games and became our national champion in some money grab tourney?

We already know they're not our best team. It's been proven during the season.

The main reason CF beats the fuck out of the NFL is the games have an "event" feel to them. I don't want to see USC-ND, Bama-Auburn, Michigan-OSU and Nebraska-OU (well, in years past) reduced to being a mid season Chargers-Raiders game.

[Terry in Crapchester]

TiC, Oregon's barely making a peep that they didn't make it into the BCS.

Oregon barely made a peep about not making it into the BCS for one simple reason: they can't. They missed out on the BCS because of a quirk in the rules which leaves the #5 team exposed if they play in a BCS conference. The rules are the rules. Presumably, Oregon knew this was a possibility beforehand (especially since it occurred to a team in their conference last season). And they bought off on those rules. Ergo, no reason (or room) to bitch. But there's been plenty of bitching from this board on their behalf.

Cal's bitching on the situation last year had far less to do with the rules (which Cal also knew about, and bought off on, beforehand) than it did with the fact that they won on the road in the final week of the regular season and still got passed over by an idle Texas team, apparently because their win wasn't quite as convincing as the powers that be thought it should be.

. . . are we simply trying to create a "feel good" post season . . .

Isn't that what we have already?

The biggest problem I have with college football's postseason is that it punishes a 9-2 season while simultaneously rewarding a 6-5 season. Trust me, part of the reason we don't have a playoff already is that coaches are huge fans of the status quo. Go 6-5 every year for ten years in a major conference and you can say in your bio that you've been to ten straight bowl games. And yes, supposedly a 9-2 team will go to a more "prestigious" bowl than a 6-5 team, but that's more a matter of perception than anything else. Some of those bowls do pay better than others, but given the revenue sharing that conferences have in place, that doesn't matter.

I have far less of a problem with a two-loss team playing for the national championship (remember, in my proposal they'd still have to win four more games to get it) than I do with the above situation.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Bah.

Let the regular season continue to matter. Would anyone really buy it at this point if suddenly UCLA or LSU won a couple games and became our national champion in some money grab tourney?

We already know they're not our best team. It's been proven during the season.

The main reason CF beats the fuck out of the NFL is the games have an "event" feel to them. I don't want to see USC-ND, Bama-Auburn, Michigan-OSU and Nebraska-OU (well, in years past) reduced to being a mid season Chargers-Raiders game.

Van, if I thought that a 16-team playoff would render the regular season meaningless, I wouldn't propose it.

As you may remember, unlike you, I have no use for the NBA. Part of the reason for that is that the regular season strikes me as nothing more than an extended preseason. Everyone in the NBA makes the playoffs.

I posted the numbers earlier, don't feel like doing it again right now, but suffice it to say that even with a 16-team playoff (the maximum anyone is proposing), of what I consider the six major spectator sports in the U.S. (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, college football and men's college basketball), college football would have far and away the smallest percentage of participants in its championship.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Thats an awful lot of flying around the country at a weeks notice

A few points on that:

1. My proposal would begin the playoff on New Year's Eve. So if academics are a concern, every school in the playoff would be off from school when the playoff starts. Most schools don't return until mid-January, and by that time you're down to four schools. So the impact on academics is minimal.
2. Revenue shouldn't be a problem. If the BCS produces enough revenue to pay $90-100 million, more or less, in appearance fees alone, what would a playoff produce?
3. Similarly, attendance won't be a problem, either. Given what's at stake here, I don't see a problem with filling these stadiums. Yes, Joe Sixpack Fan won't be at these games, but as it is, he's not at the bowl games, either.
4. If you reach the Final Four in college basketball, you'll have to travel to three different sites in three weeks. And the distances between these locales are usually just as far-flung as the distances we're talking about here. Nobody complains about that.

[Van]

TiC, to me CF is unique (and more special) in that it doesn't invite a bunch of unworthy teams to make up for their blah regular season performances by letting 'em wipe it all away with a post season tourney hot streak.

I really don't want a bunch of undeserving teams muddying up the picture. The picture is always clear in that there's never more than four teams tops who might legitimately be considered the best team in the nation by season's end.

No need to change what isn't broken. The part that is broken is so easily fixed by Plus One. No season in recent memory would've failed to give us a clear cut national champion if only Plus One had been in place following the regular bowl season...

We just need that one extra game to prevent what happened during the split national championship seasons and seasons like last year where an obviously deserving Auburn didn't get their chance.

[RadioFan]

The main reason CF beats the fuck out of the NFL is the games have an "event" feel to them. I don't want to see USC-ND, Bama-Auburn, Michigan-OSU and Nebraska-OU (well, in years past) reduced to being a mid season Chargers-Raiders game.

I understand your point, Van, but I seriously doubt games like tOSU-Mich, Fla.-Tenn, OU-Texas or UM-FSU would be rendered any less meaningful. Hell, it never is when any of those teams has a down year anyway.

And sorry, but when it comes to the post-season, there's no question whatsoever that the NFL beats the fuck out of college football, given that every post-season game in CF is virtually meaningless, save for one ... maybe two, if the current system doesn't go the way the honks want it. How ironic is that?

[Van]

RF, CF is just much cooler than the NFL. Most of us here agree on that one. A big reason for this is that "event" feel of the big regular season games. Those games determine whether or not you're going to the post season and whether or not you'll have a crack at the national title.

Do away with all that and invite sixteen teams and none of the regular season games carry anywhere near the weight they do now, and that would suck.

Teams need to know that if they lose NOW, right now in this regular season game in November, say, that they just lost their shot at the title.

That's it. The shit matters, in a way it never does in the NFL.

[Terry in Crapchester]

No need to change what isn't broken.

On that point, we agree. Where we disagree, I think, is on exactly what is broken.

To me, a postseason that treats a 6-5 team in virtually the exact same manner that it treats a 9-2 team is broken. Hence, the justification for a 16-team playoff.

[RadioFan]

Van, I see ya workin. I just don't agree that the regular season would be rendered less meaningful ... especially for smaller programs that happen to go undefeated (ala Utah last year). Not to mention when there's 3 or more teams with the same record. Plus, it would end all of the conference arguments and the apples vs. oranges when comparing team schedules, etc.

I don't like polls and computers determining who the best team is or which "best teams" should be "allowed" to play for the MNC, and never will. It's subjective and leaves too many "what ifs" year after year (this one being one of the rare exceptions since the inception of the BCS). Sorry, but until a champion is actually determined on the field like in every other major sport, CF, with all its traditions, rivalries and history, will never be as great as it could be.

A plus one would help, don't get me wrong. I'd take it over the current system (or in addition to the current system). Though I don't think it could resolve a true champion every single year.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Van, I see ya workin. I just don't agree that the regular season would be rendered less meaningful ... especially for smaller programs that happen to go undefeated (ala Utah last year). Not to mention when there's 3 or more teams with the same record. Plus, it would end all of the conference arguments and the apples vs. oranges when comparing team schedules, etc.

I don't like polls and computers determining who the best team is or which "best teams" should be "allowed" to play for the MNC, and never will. It's subjective and leaves too many "what ifs" year after year (this one being one of the rare exceptions since the inception of the BCS). Sorry, but until a champion is actually determined on the field like in every other major sport, CF, with all its traditions, rivalries and history, will never be as great as it could be.

A plus one would help, don't get me wrong. I'd take it over the current system (or in addition to the current system). Though I don't think it could resolve a true champion every single year.

Rack. That's it exactly.

[Van]

No need to change what isn't broken.

On that point, we agree. Where we disagree, I think, is on exactly what is broken.

To me, a postseason that treats a 6-5 team in virtually the exact same manner that it treats a 9-2 team is broken. Hence, the justification for a 16-team playoff.

That's hardly the relevant fix for the main problem, which is determining the national champion.

The 6-5 team getting a bowl bid is merely a leaky roof. The nonsense surrounding the BCS title game is a misaligned foundation.

No reason you can't fix both problems but one has nothing to do with the other and a 16 team playoff isn't necessary to fix either one. Plus One will fix the main problem and the elimination of automatic conference tie ins and bowl games awarded to teams merely for having "winning" records fixes the other.

Either way we don't need sixteen teams vying for something which has only been earned by three or four teams, tops...

[Van]

Van, I see ya workin. I just don't agree that the regular season would be rendered less meaningful ... especially for smaller programs that happen to go undefeated (ala Utah last year). Not to mention when there's 3 or more teams with the same record. Plus, it would end all of the conference arguments and the apples vs. oranges when comparing team schedules, etc.

I don't like polls and computers determining who the best team is or which "best teams" should be "allowed" to play for the MNC, and never will. It's subjective and leaves too many "what ifs" year after year (this one being one of the rare exceptions since the inception of the BCS). Sorry, but until a champion is actually determined on the field like in every other major sport, CF, with all its traditions, rivalries and history, will never be as great as it could be.

A plus one would help, don't get me wrong. I'd take it over the current system (or in addition to the current system). Though I don't think it could resolve a true champion every single year.

Rack. That's it exactly.

Plus One does make sure the winner is determined on the field. After all is said and done it directly matches up the only two remaining viable candidates for the national title. How much more merit based can it get?

Name me ONE year where the national champion could've realistically been debated by more than four teams, which would be the basis for Plus One?

One year, ever?

Most years, three teams is a rarity. It's not often we end the regular season with three teams that have an equal argument while also being heads and shoulders above everybody else.

We had that the last two seasons, but it's rare. It's never gone to four teams with an equal argument, much less five or more. Plus One covers the top four teams and again if there's debate about that fourth team then so be it. Teams vying for that fourth slot are on the periphery to begin with so the loser in that "bubble" debate didn't have a very strong argument for #1 anyway so we don't need to hear any bitching from 'em.

Teams like Utah? They don't deserve to get factored into the final equation. Sorry. Too bad. Until their schedule is at least somewhat commensurate with those of the winners of the major conferences their argument needn't even be addressed. They're not playing with the grown ups all year long so they don't get an invite to the grown ups' table during the holidays...

If they wanna play with the big kids come the holidays they're going to have start scheduling like a mother OOC to make up for playing in a Mid Major and they're going to have win those tough OOC games. Utah did not do that and they were one of the very few Mid Majors to even enter into any semblance of the final discussion for the national title.

The Small School argument is simply a non factor. An undefeated Utah is simply not on a par with an undefeated USC or Auburn and every last one of us knows it so let's not try to create issues where none exist...

[Degenerate]

If they wanna play with the big kids come the holidays they're going to have start scheduling like a mother OOC to make up for playing in a Mid Major and they're going to have win those tough OOC games. Utah did not do that and they were one of the very few Mid Majors to even enter into any semblance of the final discussion for the national title.

You obviously have no idea who Utah scheduled and beat OOC last year. It wasn't a murderer's row but it was head and shoulders above LA-Monroe, Citadel, and LA Tech.

[Shoalzie]

What's wrong with Plus One? See last year...you had three unbeatens after the bowls were played. Still one team will be left out. End of debate.

I don't care if the third unbeaten team was Utah or Temple. If you finish unbeaten and you don't get a chance at a national title, there's something wrong. If you're a Division-IA program, you should have just as must claim at the national title as anyone else. We have to break down this class system so teams from smaller conferences get as many priviledges as the major conferences get.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Van, what I don't understand is how you argue that even a 16-team playoff would dilute the meaning of the regular season. As I pointed out, this year you'd need to have at least a 9-2 regular season record to qualify (unless, of course, you award automatic bids to conference champions, in which case, at a minimum, Florida State comes in with 4 losses). That's a .818 winning percentage. I hardly see including those teams within your playoff as "diluting" the quality of the regular season, especially when you compare it to other sports where the standards for qualifying for the playoffs are far more lenient.

What it would do is save those fans who, like me, live and die with their team's performance every week, from the shower rod. As I've said before, I've been contemplating walking away from college football as a fan due to the effect that ND losses have on my relationship with my wife and my kids, my work performance, etc. A 16-team playoff ends that, as one loss is now no big deal and even a second loss, given who I root for, doesn't disqualify my team from a playoff scenario.

Having said all of that, as a practical matter, if a playoff is ever adopted, I would assume that it will initially have the Plus One format, as anything more extensive would be culture shock for college football. However, once a playoff is in place, money will drive the bus on the issue, and for that reason, the playoff will eventually be expanded to 16 teams in relatively short order. I don't see it going beyond 16 teams, however, as anything beyond that looks unworkable to me.

[Van]

If they wanna play with the big kids come the holidays they're going to have start scheduling like a mother OOC to make up for playing in a Mid Major and they're going to have win those tough OOC games. Utah did not do that and they were one of the very few Mid Majors to even enter into any semblance of the final discussion for the national title.

You obviously have no idea who Utah scheduled and beat OOC last year. It wasn't a murderer's row but it was head and shoulders above LA-Monroe, Citadel, and LA Tech.

Lay it out there. Their entire schedule. See if it rates. When you're looking at the W-L records of their opponents take into account who they played to attain those W-L records.

See if it rates. It won't.

[Van]

What's wrong with Plus One? See last year...you had three unbeatens after the bowls were played. Still one team will be left out. End of debate.

I don't care if the third unbeaten team was Utah or Temple. If you finish unbeaten and you don't get a chance at a national title, there's something wrong. If you're a Division-IA program, you should have just as must claim at the national title as anyone else. We have to break down this class system so teams from smaller conferences get as many priviledges as the major conferences get.

No we don't. Temple or Utah going undefeated doesn't have the same degree of difficulty as USC or Auburn going undefeated so the rewards for each team doing so shouldn't be equal.

[Van]

TiC, those points you just made are all the proof I need that a 16 team playoff season does dillute the regular season.

If you're not looking for that shower rod after even two losses then yes, the regular season has been greatly dilluted.

It's all or nothing right now, and that's why CF rules even over other college sports. Winning a big game right now truly is winning a big game. You don't get second and third chances so when you line up in November it's already for all the marbles. Even a loss in October can come back and haunt you.

That's beautiful. No coasting. You'd better bring it each and every time. That's how it ought to be in all sports.

[Terry in Crapchester]

TiC, those points you just made are all the proof I need that a 16 team playoff season does dillute the regular season.

If you're not looking for that shower rod after even two losses then yes, the regular season has been greatly dilluted.

Most of us on this board prefer college football to the NFL, but I'll remind you once again, we're in the minority as far as the entire country is concerned. Where I live, I'm in the minority big time -- I'd put the numbers at about 80-20 (of course, that limits it to people who have a preference), and trust me, that's a conservative estimate.

What's worse, losing a fan because a single loss by his team takes too much of an impact upon his personal life, or changing things up a bit so that he can live with two losses? To me, that's a no-brainer.

[Van]

Such a fan needs to regain a bit of perspective then...

[SoCalTrjn]

No system that does not include standardized, NCAA generated schedules with equal amounts of road and home games will be any better than what is currently in place