Hawaii, Georgia, and the BS NC

[mcgufcm 4,107]

I wouldn't want a playoff that included Hawaii. I'm not even kidding. I don't want a 16 team playoff. I LOVE the fact that every single game feels do or die. If a playoff went beyond 6 teams, you'd lose that feeling.

Personally, I'd love the 4 team go with the stipulation that you have to be a conference champ. That would move the argument down from "We're number 2!" to "We're number 4!" Some folks say it's the same, but it's really not. I don't give a crap if a team lost a couple of games and tries to sell themselves as worthy... no matter what, no 2 loss team really deserves a crack at the title. If you get one? Fine. No problem, but you don't have a beef if you get passed over. That's why I didn't really care if LSU or UGA or USC or Mizzou or OU or whoever got in. None of them really has a beef. WIN MORE GAMES.

Instead, the reason I think you go with four is that we've never had a year with MORE than four DESERVING teams. In 2004 you had USC, OU (both of which deserved a shot at the title just no less but certainly no more than us), Auburn, and arguably Utah. So four would be enough to accommodate the worthy teams basically every year. If someone happens to get tossed in for a shot at the ring when they aren't on the level of the other teams, so be it. But I don't give a crap if you arbitrarily choose between a bunch of equal teams that didn't earn their way in; I only care about getting a system that doesn't leave out all the teams that did earn their way in.

For the record my 4 team groupings over the last few years would've looked like this:

2007: OSU, LSU, OU, and USC – wouldn't include Hawaii but I guess if you toss them in you just bump any of the LSU/OU/USC threesome based on who did the least during the year. It just seems odd to bounce a team for playing a weak schedule to include Hawaii with one of the worst schedules I've ever seen.

2006: OSU, UF, probably Boise, and USC (conference champs only)

2005: UT and USC were the only deserving teams... toss in any of the PSU/OSU (tied), ND, WVU, UGA poo-poo platter

2004: USC, OU, Auburn, and probably Utah but I could see Va Tech

2003: Miami, OSU, UGA, and probably USC

My point is... this never leaves out a truly deserving team. It just shifts the argument to the teams that didn't earn their way in. One of them is going to get a gift shot at a title, but just because someone else gets a gift, it doesn't all the sudden make you a DESERVING team just because the two of you are equal. It just means they got some grace and you didn't, but the four team playoff would never leave out a deserving team.

[SKCAUB 0]

If Hawaii beats Georgia, then I will consider them more deserving of the title than anybody. Sure they had a weak schedule, and sure their fans seem to be god-awful. But if they face a team as tough as Georgia on a stage that big and win, then they've got my vote.

Of course, that's mainly because, this year, there aren't any good candidates. Hawaii would have not been in the discussion in any previous year in the BCS era, or probably before.

But you're right... they will have no shot at a BCS title this year.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

It's the overall body of work that counts. They haven't played ANYBODY...they don't deserve ANYTHING, even if they get lucky and beat UGA. Ridiculous...sorry...just ridiculous.

[McWeagle 4]

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

It's the overall body of work that counts. They haven't played ANYBODY...they don't deserve ANYTHING, even if they get lucky and beat UGA. Ridiculous...sorry...just ridiculous.

So tell me, WHO OUT THERE HAS A BETTER BODY OF WORK????

Yes, the other teams in the discussion all had tougher schedules... AND BLEW IT. LSU - BLEW IT. Oklahoma - BLEW IT. USC - BLEW IT. UGA - BLEW IT. Ohio St - BLEW IT (And their schedule was weak as hell to begin w/!!!).

What the hell does it matter if you have a tough schedule if you don't win the damn games?

AGAIN... in any other season, Hawaii would not be in the discussion. But face it... THIS SEASON... there are no good candidates.

[townhallsavoy 2]

I wouldn't want a playoff that included Hawaii. I'm not even kidding. I don't want a 16 team playoff. I LOVE the fact that every single game feels do or die. If a playoff went beyond 6 teams, you'd lose that feeling.

Personally, I'd love the 4 team go with the stipulation that you have to be a conference champ. That would move the argument down from "We're number 2!" to "We're number 4!" Some folks say it's the same, but it's really not. I don't give a crap if a team lost a couple of games and tries to sell themselves as worthy... no matter what, no 2 loss team really deserves a crack at the title. If you get one? Fine. No problem, but you don't have a beef if you get passed over. That's why I didn't really care if LSU or UGA or USC or Mizzou or OU or whoever got in. None of them really has a beef. WIN MORE GAMES.

Instead, the reason I think you go with four is that we've never had a year with MORE than four DESERVING teams. In 2004 you had USC, OU (both of which deserved a shot at the title just no less but certainly no more than us), Auburn, and arguably Utah. So four would be enough to accommodate the worthy teams basically every year. If someone happens to get tossed in for a shot at the ring when they aren't on the level of the other teams, so be it. But I don't give a crap if you arbitrarily choose between a bunch of equal teams that didn't earn their way in; I only care about getting a system that doesn't leave out all the teams that did earn their way in.

For the record my 4 team groupings over the last few years would've looked like this:

2007: OSU, LSU, OU, and USC – wouldn't include Hawaii but I guess if you toss them in you just bump any of the LSU/OU/USC threesome based on who did the least during the year. It just seems odd to bounce a team for playing a weak schedule to include Hawaii with one of the worst schedules I've ever seen.

2006: OSU, UF, probably Boise, and USC (conference champs only)

2005: UT and USC were the only deserving teams... toss in any of the PSU/OSU (tied), ND, WVU, UGA poo-poo platter

2004: USC, OU, Auburn, and probably Utah but I could see Va Tech

2003: Miami, OSU, UGA, and probably USC

My point is... this never leaves out a truly deserving team. It just shifts the argument to the teams that didn't earn their way in. One of them is going to get a gift shot at a title, but just because someone else gets a gift, it doesn't all the sudden make you a DESERVING team just because the two of you are equal. It just means they got some grace and you didn't, but the four team playoff would never leave out a deserving team.

For one, how do you feel about LSU dying twice this season and still making it to the championship game? Hawaii won all of its do or die games.

And two, I think a four team playoff would make for a more intense regular season, but you still don't have the top teams competing. There are 119 teams in Div I. Do you really think only four of them are worthy of competing for the top spot? The NFL has 32 teams and allows 12 to compete in the playoffs. NCAA basketball allowed 64 to compete. I think the best solution for all this mess is to create a new division. Narrow down Division I to create more parody, and then put in a system that gives every team the equal chance of meeting the goal that every team is striving for. No more of this, "You didn't have a hard enough schedule" or "We think LSU was a better team."