BCS playoff

[Westtncat]

OK, forgive me because I think I do this every year and will probably do it next year but I really wish the BCS would expand to at least 8 teams. There's still a long way to go but I foresee Notre Dame finishing the season undefeated and over ranked. There is still too much human influence on these polls. Other than at USC I'm not sure they will have a challenge. Then again I feel they are overrated so maybe I will be surprised. Also, if things play out the way I think they can, UK could end up inside the top ten this year, especially if we are able to beat Georgia at home.

I have always been and will always be a huge opponent to one loss in a season totally taking a team out of the picture, which the BCS often does. Eight teams would include enough potential champions while at the same time keeping the season games importance very high. College football is still the only sport with this type of exclusive playoff system. I suppose the conference championships do help some but I will still love to see 8 teams.

[johnkyblue]

The regular season is the playoffs in CFB. The more you put that in the post season the more you take that away from the regular season.

[Westtncat]

The regular season is the playoffs in CFB. The more you put that in the post season the more you take that away from the regular season.

Heard that before, seems to only be said in college football. So if by some miracle Alabama loses in the conference tourney they are no longer one of the top four teams even if another team has one loss also?

[RV]

I agree there should be 8 teams but I also think the 5 major conference champions should be automatic qualifiers. The other three could be determined by a committee.

[Westtncat]

I agree there should be 8 teams but I also think the 5 major conference champions should be automatic qualifiers. The other three could be determined by a committee.

Not the worst idea, the only problem I have with that is, I want the best teams regardless of conference. I suppose if you have a conference championship it would take care of that issue tho. Then the conference championship would truly be a playoff game.

[KevinHall]

I agree there should be 8 teams but I also think the 5 major conference champions should be automatic qualifiers. The other three could be determined by a committee.

That's what I have said all along. I think it will come that the year after the SEC gets left out one season. Pac 12 might start screaming after this year as they won't be in the playoffs again this year.

[Matt Dillon]

I agree with expanding to eight teams. Just like in bb though, no matter how many teams are in it there'll always be someone complaining that they should have been in.

[largebluej]

Totally against playoff expansion. I love the week to week tension of the CFB regular season. We've watered down every other sport's regular season with expanded playoffs. Leave CFB alone.

[Brasslock]

There are too many games. There is already more than enough physical wear and tear on these young men. I don't have any idea of how to resolve some of the issues. I'm not certain what the present "formula" may be. Surely a loss early in the season doesn't carry as much weight as a loss toward the end of the season, but I have no idea of their formula.

[Old School]

Four teams is enough. College football is different in a good way with how every single game throughout the season matters so much. It's very infrequent that there's much of an argument to be made that you need even a fourth team in the playoff, because by season's end there are usually a maximum of three teams that can really lay claim to having established a credible claim to having proven themselves to be the best in the country, and many seasons, there are fewer than three that can make that claim.

If you want to refine or improve the way we determine a national champion in football, here's my suggestion: require each Power 5 team to play one game each season against a team from each of the other Power 5 conferences. Be done with scheduling weaklings from nothing conferences and lower levels. Let the teams and conferences prove themselves against each other. You'd make every game during the season somewhat interesting, and many of them very, very interesting. Oregon is ranked #12 right now. Their nonconference schedule was Bowling Green State, Portland State, and San Jose State. Give me a break. Play opponents from the Big XII, Big Ten, ACC and SEC and then tell me you're one of the 12 best teams in the country.

[Catsrock]

You're on fire tonight Old School. Especially with the PAC 12 being the joke of the power 5 in recent years...weak conference schedule and THAT'S who you schedule out of conference? Deserves less than a UCF who cannot help their week conference but schedules some good out of conference games. Teams like that would do anything to get into a real conference. Need proof? UL sold their soul for a seatbelt the grown-up table.

[Old School]

You're on fire tonight Old School. Especially with the PAC 12 being the joke of the power 5 in recent years...weak conference schedule and THAT'S who you schedule out of conference? Deserves less than a UCF who cannot help their week conference but schedules some good out of conference games. Teams like that would do anything to get into a real conference. Need proof? UL sold their soul for a seatbelt the grown-up table.

Since Louisville left CUSA, the Big East and the AAC or whatever it was, their win-loss record and rankings underwent a pretty steep decline, with an extra 2-4 losses per year. If you wanted a laboratory experiment to verify what you talk about in your post, that would just about be it. (It’s a major change, and one that isn’t acknowledged by many of the people scratching their heads right now wondering why Petrino isn’t producing the same results he did during his earlier tenure at Louisville.)

[RV]

ul/Petrino record 2016 to now 19-14
UK/Stoops record 2016 to now 19-13

And these are two programs currently on opposite trajectories.

[Westtncat]

Four teams is enough. College football is different in a good way with how every single game throughout the season matters so much. It's very infrequent that there's much of an argument to be made that you need even a fourth team in the playoff, because by season's end there are usually a maximum of three teams that can really lay claim to having established a credible claim to having proven themselves to be the best in the country, and many seasons, there are fewer than three that can make that claim.

If you want to refine or improve the way we determine a national champion in football, here's my suggestion: require each Power 5 team to play one game each season against a team from each of the other Power 5 conferences. Be done with scheduling weaklings from nothing conferences and lower levels. Let the teams and conferences prove themselves against each other. You'd make every game during the season somewhat interesting, and many of them very, very interesting. Oregon is ranked #12 right now. Their nonconference schedule was Bowling Green State, Portland State, and San Jose State. Give me a break. Play opponents from the Big XII, Big Ten, ACC and SEC and then tell me you're one of the 12 best teams in the country.

This is actually not true most years. Last year UCF went 13-0 including a bowl game victory over Auburn and had absolutely no shot at a title. You think thats good or even fair for college football? No way.

[Westtncat]

Also, it seems if you cant play some of the "nothing conferences" then they would never have a shot to prove themselves so that makes me wonder, why should they even be in division 1 football? Tell me you thought UCF would beat Auburn last year? I didnt.