Where do you stand on the GREAT ISSUE: Playoffs?

On another thread Getdown11 wrote:

Be fired up for every game because they all count.

It got me to thinking about the now classic debate: To playoff or not to playoff, that is the question. I wonder where the quality football minds on this forum stand on this issue. My 2 cents follows; what is yours?

If I am King, President, Commissioner, Emperor-in-charge, I would declare and decree under penalty of lethal lashings that There Shall Be No Playoff! I would allow a +1 formula, but no bracket-type playoff.

Why? What we have now is too great, too terrific, too fun, too debatable, too undecipherable to mess with. Right now, every game is already a playoff game. Every game is vital in the final analysis as to who will be ranked where and the final two spots for the title game. College football doesn't lend itself to a seed-based playoff format because there are so few games, and student athletes do not need more games added to their already crowded season.

Additionally, a playoff won't solve the issue either. There will still be argument and debate over who should have been seeded where, and that the final outcome does not reflect the true champion. While at first glance a playoff would seem to be the logical, rational way to approach determining a champion, it is not in college football. Our rivalry games, our bowl games, even our standard regular season games are so good, so interesting, meaningful and financially productive for the schools and conferences that we must not try to FIX a nonexistent problem. Let us not venture into a shop of horrors the way government would, and ruin the best thing going for entertainment on earth!

Don't banish me, Dawgspeare, but I've always been a fan of playoffs. Not a big bracket, though. 4 or 8 teams at most. Yes, there would still be debate, and teams with their feelings hurt, but the way it is now, it's a benefit to schedule cream puffs just to be undefeated or have one loss at the end of the year. The tougher conferences are punished, just like this year. I think the Big Least and the Little 12 and the Big 1 are a few of the weaker conferences in the country, but they've got the championship pretty much locked up among them.

I like the +1 system. Let the BCS and bowl games play out then have the championship game between the #1 and #2 teams in the country.

I dont like the bracket system, plus I love the fact that every game during the season counts. As far as Im concerned I love the 12 week playoff system we have now. Plus I love the talk and controversy of the BCS system.

I disagree. No matter what type of system you have there are always going to have debate. However, at least a playoff would give a little bit more validity.

First you would cut the season to 11 games. This would free up an extra week.

Next you go to a 10 team playoff, the 6 BCS conference champs and 4 at large bids. The 4 at large bids would basically use the at-large requirements that are used now in the BCS system. If you are not one of these top 10, there is no way you could claim you deserve a shot.

The first week of the playoffs would be the 4 at large teams playing each other in the Chick-fil-A & Gator bowls. The first round could rotate between differnt smaller bowls if you wanted. That would leave the 6 conf champs and 2 at large.

Week two matchups could be predetermined each year (i.e...Bowl so and so would go here) or would be based on rankings in the BCS of the teams left, (1-8), (2-7), and so forth. These 4 games would be played in the Cotton, Outback, Capital One, and a BCS Bowl (on a rotational basis). This would leave 4 teams.

XMAS BREAK ....

Week three matchups would be determined just like week 2 (either predetermined each year or by BSC position). The week 3 match-ups would be played in 2 of the last 3 BCS bowls (rotational basis).

THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME would be played in the final BCS bowl.

It would add a few weeks, but this is already being done in the sub divisions so no one can complain about the academic side. BY backing the season up a week all the conference games would be played in late november, meaning that the first two weeks woul dbe played in EARLY december with time off for finals. If this is still to late, you could put the break between week 1 & 2 so that finals could be taken.

There is a reason nobody watches 1-A, D2 or D3 football. It ain't because of inferior play (anybody who saw Valdosta State win its NC or App win either of its NCs and beat Michigan knows that), it's because the regular season doesn't matter as much. I sincerely believe that the only reason the NFL (which puts a SEVERELY inferior product on the field, in my opinion) generates the revenue it does is because of Fantasy Football and gambling.

I'm in favor of a plus-one system, but I don't believe in a football national championship. So there. Besides, playoffs don't necessarily determine the best team in the country; they just generate revenue. Look at the 2005 Steelers. They were the 6-seed in the playoffs, the worst AFC team to make the playoffs, and they won the Superbowl. Look at the 2006 Cardinals, who were THE WORST World Series Champions in history in the regular season. What about the NCAA national championship, in which a 1-seed (one of the four best teams in the country) only wins about 49% of the time? And that's just recent history. You've also got the '87 Twins, the '83 NC State Wolfpack, and on and on.

Then again, every year after the final BCS standings come out, I put together a mock-tourney based on a logical system...so...you know...

The other thing that bothers me about a playoff is the fact that most of the playoff advocates never bother to determine the money payouts.