I would rather see kids decide who takes home the NC trophy on the field, rather than watching one hand-picked game for it and 4 other exhibition .

I would rather see kids decide who takes home the NC trophy on the field, rather than watching one hand-picked game for it and 4 other exhibition .

But for cryin' out loud bump the teams like Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, BYU, Utah, TCU, Colorado State, Air Force, etc. up to an equal level because those schools have all proven that they can compete at that level.

And, yes, BAN the games against Division I-AA teams!

If anything, it allows them to set up more compelling match ups because it does in fact devalue a loss in the regular season making it more acceptable. How would turning college football into the NFL where a few losses are negligible be good for the sport? It is the notion that a loss at any point of the season whether it be the season opener to Appalachian State, or a late season loss to Iowa that means the life or death of a team's playoff chances. Once that happens, the fate of the teams are left up to backroom dealings and media politicking. That my friends, is the sport I love. Like I said, I would much rather be remembered as Rose Bowl champions, than NCAA Division I-A Playoff Second Round participant any day of the week.

You say it would give teams a chace to re-deem themselves (which isn't a bad thing). Yet this last year, two teams with losses were playing for the NC while the ONLY undefeated team was in the Sugar Bowl…. A play-off simply does this: It's lets the players (from all deserving teams) decide on the field who goes home as champions. Which is infinitely better than letting a bunch of old men “decide” the two best teams.

USC, Texas, Penn State, Florida State, Georgia, West Virginia, and Ohio State would have been seeded into this proposed playoff. Had Ohio State won that 2005 playoff, that thrilling 17-10 win in Happy Valley would have meant little to nothing. How about if Florida State (the ACC champion that year) with 4 losses ended up winning the playoff? Can we really declare the Seminoles, who had lost to Virginia, NC State, Clemson and Florida during the regular season the undisputed college football champion by just winning this post season tournament?

Then let's take the 2006 season ending “game of the year” between the Buckeyes and Wolverines. It was the final game of the year and #1 Ohio State was set to battle #2 Michigan. Had your playoff been in place, heck if any sort of playoff were in place. That game would have meant as much as an All Star game in terms of significance. The only difference that game would have made would have been in determining which team would get the Big Ten automatic spot and which team would be the at-large. It wouldn't have mattered who won, or who lost. They were ranked #1 and #2 to end the season and the worst that could have happened is if there was a potential rematch in a playoff.

And had the Gators been upset in a playoff system by Wake Forest (lost to Louisville in Orange Bowl), Oklahoma (lost to Boise State in Fiesta Bowl), USC (who lost to UCLA to end the season), or even Michigan (lost to Ohio State), would a Oklahoma, Boise State, USC, Michigan, or even Notre Dame (lost in the Sugar Bowl that year) winner of your playoff be less controversial than the Gators?

Does a playoff provide a “fairer” way to determine a national champion? Probably yes, but possibly no. It sure provides a chance for teams that haven't done their best in the regular season to redeem themselves in the post season.

The Giants sure weren't undisputed 2007 champions, heck they didn't even win their own NFC East conference. Let's not forget they ended the season losing to the Patriots at home. But by stringing together 4 wins in a row, the Giants won their third attempt against the Patriots, and somehow they are considered the best team in 2007? I don't think so.

But in this BCS system, if a team hasn't shown its worth in the regular season to ensure a spot in the top 2, the team is as much to blame as the system. As a Penn State fan I am extremely nervous about missing the title game should we go undefeated this year, but I won't blame the BCS for it. We seemingly went out and picked the worst team from each division to play this year and expect to get a free ride into the title game when we have 4 automatic wins against high school caliber teams?

When teams get left out in our current system, the controversy should not be blamed on a system that does an infinitely better job than the old bowl tie-ins in creating a championship matchup, but on the teams itself. The 2004 Auburn Tigers had the same flaw that our 2009 Nittany Lions will face should they go undefeated. Their non conference schedule consisted of ULM (U of Louisiana Monroe, I had to look it up), The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech. They ended up only facing 3 ranked teams during the regular season before the SEC championship game.

Should they have been given a shot at the title game? Probably, but you don't play a schedule like that and be in the position to demand anything. Penn State's basketball team learned that the hard way last year.

I applaud your great argument for a playoff, but it would destroy what I love about college football and render it a mini version of the NFL where I don't bother watching the first half of the season anyways. And people have to come up with a better argument than “an unfair way to determine a national champion” to ruin the sport I love. I have no problem with ending the season being declared Rose Bowl champions rather than College Football Playoff Second Round participants any day of the week.

I agree with Kevin. The only fair playoff is one that lets in each conference champion. If it's an 8-team playoff, there's still some person or computer that has to choose between deserving teams.

One point I didn't even bring up in response to Charlie's post was the recruiting edge a school gets just from being in a BCS conference. Not only does Fresno State regularly beat Pac-10 teams right now, but if the Bulldogs ever joined the Pac-10 it would open up a whole new pool of recruits who thirst for BCS-conf. play. Then, maybe Fresno State doesn't have to go undefeated every year to have a shot at the national title.

By the way, in 2005, when Fresno State lost to No. 1 USC at the LA Coliseum by 8 points (after two late interceptions in the end zone by USC), there was talk the 'Dogs might still be BCS-worthy even with two losses (the other was to a top 10 Oregon team on the road). But Fresno State is the only non-BCS conf. team who garners that type of respect… and that's because Pat Hill will schedule “Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere.”

USC will probably never play the 'Dogs again after seeing the frightened look on Pete Carroll's face that night. Heck, that was the first time they'd EVER scheduled Fresno State despite the schools being a 3 1/2 hour drive away. How can that not be looked at as cowardly?

I actually like the 16 team format, where each conference champion gets a shot at the big prize, and the best teams not to be named champs get a chance.

Oh well, the truth is nothing is likely to change in the near future in the form of an actual playoff format, no matter how many members of congress and the senate cry foul about it. It's all about money.