Who belongs in the National Championship game....

[JimEverett]

Great point SoonerJim.
If Michigan and Ohio State play again - it won;t matter who wins, I will still doubt they are the two best teams out there.

And I also agree that the system before the BCS was preferable.
Hell, bring back the SWC and make the Cotton Bowl mean something again.

[Ted]

Originally Posted by CT Saints Fan

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could say that the National Championship should be anyone other than LSU (first team) vs. LSU (second team).

Finally someone speaking some sense here

[CT Saints Fan]

Originally Posted by Ted

Finally someone speaking some sense here

The only team that should be considered for the NC outside of LSU would be the '72 Dolphins.

[MLU]

Originally Posted by JimEverett

McFadden played in the USC game and had more rushes than Felix Jones.
I talked about it in another thread, but USC dismantled Arkansas on both sides of the ball, and for the second year in a row. Two times is not a fluke.

But Arkansas is a lot better than they were at the first of the year, but I think USC's defense is a whole lot better as well. No way should a one loss ARkansas make it over a one loss USC.

I didn't watch it, but McFaddin played with the broken toe? I remembered them saying pre-game that McFaddin was out because of that injury, so I didn't bother to watch it. Anywho, it's a different Arkansas team now.

[MLU]

I'm definitely in the minority, but I that wasn't impressed with either Michigan or tOSU this year. They're good, but not worth the "greatest ever" hype they're getting no more than the same hype the SC/ND game last year received. They're good and worthy of playing in the Nat'l Title game, but so are SC and UF.

[JimEverett]

Originally Posted by MLU

I'm definitely in the minority, but I that wasn't impressed with either Michigan or tOSU this year. They're good, but not worth the "greatest ever" hype they're getting no more than the same hype the SC/ND game last year received. They're good and worthy of playing in the Nat'l Title game, but so are SC and UF.

I'm with you on that. When I say they are a little overrated I don;t mean that they are in athe class of Vanderbilt, or even Tennessee (that hurts to say that), but that they aren't so clearly the two best teams in the nation. In other words, neither one of htem are close to 1995 Cornhuskers status.

[MLU]

or 2003 LSU...

[UGASaintsUGA]

In college football we rarely get to see the top programs playing each other. The Bowl Championship Series is the only real opportunity for the top non-conference teams to play each other. It would be a real shame if we missed out on a great inter-conference matchup this year.

[bclemms]

Arkansas if they win out, if not USC if they win out (yuck), Florida if they win out and USC drops another game, Michigan if all else fails, after that who the hell knows.

[CT Saints Fan]

My simple, and practical, solution to college football (which is why it will never be considered) [tm - CT]

1. There are approximately 117 Division 1-A college football programs.

2. Take them and divide them into 8 conferences of 14 teams each.

3. Split each conference into 2 divisions of 7 teams each.

4. Each team plays a 10-game schedule - 6 games against the teams in their own division, 3 games against the 7 teams in the other division within their conference on a rotating basis, and 1 game against a regional, non-conference rival (LSU - Tulane, Florida - Florida State, Virginia Tech - West Virginia, South Carolina - Clemson, etc.)

5. Then each conference has 2 division champs who play for their conference championship.

6. The 8 conference champions are seeded into an 8-team playoff.

That maxes out at 14 games for the last 2 teams. It also maxes out at 11 games for the 16 teams that play in each conference championship game.

You want to win the national championship? Win your divison and confernce first. It's that simple.

Some teams already play 14 games (including their bowl game) so that shouldn't affect the argument of a playoff system adding too many games.

[JimEverett]

CT - that plan would run the risk of destroying old rilvaries in the college game. From a Tennessee perspective I want to make sure we play Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Vandy, and Kentucky each year and get Auburn at least 2 times every 8 years (was against the SEC merger becasue it ended the yearly Tennessee-Auburn game. Plus, Iwould like to play LSU and the Mississippi schools every few years as well.

It seems like that plan would dilute the schedule of a lot of big time schools. So an SEC team would substitute its yearly game with Bama with a yearly game against MTSU, and its yearly game v. Arkansas with a yearly game against Tulane; or an ACC school would substitute its yearly game with Clemson for one with Florida International and its yearly game v. Maryland with one v. East Carolina.

[CT Saints Fan]

Not if they are in the same division and conference, just like they are now. LSU plays Alabama every year now because they are both SEC West. LSU doesn't play Tennessee every year because they are SEC West and SEC East, respectively. That would still be the same.

[BELOWSEALEVEL]

This thread smells like sec bias. shocker there.

[JimEverett]

Oh - so all the conferences stay pretty much the same? Like the Sunbelt and SEC stay pretty much as they are now, and the Sunbelt gets treated the same way as the SEC for playoff purposes?

[CT Saints Fan]

Originally Posted by JimEverett

Oh - so all the conferences stay pretty much the same? Like the Sunbelt and SEC stay pretty much as they are now, and the Sunbelt gets treated the same way as the SEC for playoff purposes?

Yes, just like basketball. If you think you are good enough to win the national championship, then you better be good enough to win the SEC.

Of course, when you create new conferences, you work to avoid weak conferences, so SunBelt, etc.