I think we could already have a playoff, by just simply changing
things around ever so slightly, and adding one more game (which they
are wanting to do anyhow).

Last year, for example, you would have had Oklahoma vs. Mich. and USC
vs. LSU, then the winners play each other. Otherwise, have 1 vs. 4,
and 2 vs. 3, then play each other. All bowls would still operate and
we would only have one more game, and we would certainly have a
national champion. Also, the people in the number 5 position, if
they started complaining that they should have been in the playoff,
well, I don't think it's going to hold quite the controversy.

Playoffs, however, take away from having to achieve an undefeated
season, slighly.

I wouldn't mind a top 4 playoff, but that is all I would ever like to
see. I do like the idea of having one unified national champ, but
really, what was so bad about having USC, and LSU as national champs
last year? It's college, not pros. i.e. we don't have to have
a 'super-bowl'


--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "cougisbcs" <cougisgood@h...>
wrote:
> bwashburn wrote:
> > The problem ain't in the formula- it's in how they're applying
> > it... you
> > can't design any formula which will take you from 117 to 2 in a
> > single
> > step, and not have controversial outcomes from time to time..
>
> And as well, any subjective system that tries narrow 117 to two
will
> be as controversial as any objectively applied formula. But I
> digress. Adding more teams into a playoff is always the best
method
> of diluting any controversy.