Bill Hancock, administrator of the BCS(and former director of the

Final Four) was a guest on a Sports Talk program here in Columbus

today that is co-hosted by

Chris Spielman.



Hancock explained that clause in the upcoming BCS contract with ESPN

that begins with the 2011 Bowl Season.  According to Hancock if a team

from a Non-Automatic Qualiying BCS conference qualifies for a BCS game

and the PAC-Ten or Big-Ten loses its champion the Rose Bowl will take

the Non-AQ team.



But this is a one time only shot in a four year BCS cycle.



Hancock said the clause was a delicate one to negotiate with the Rose

Bowl and it was not a suggestion of ESPN which takes over the BCS

telecasts in 2011 through 2014.



On another issue, Hancock felt that a plus-one might get support if

the 11 BCS conference commissioners could be assured of no

bracket creep which has happened to every other sport with a play-off.



At the same time Hancock reiterated the strong position of the BCS

commissioners that they want to do nothing to upset the tradition of

the Bowls or the unprecedented interest of fans and media in the

regular season.





Unfortunately, neither co-host asked Hancock how the existing system

could not but obviously be changed with a plus one.



Hancock also touched on the Coaches' Poll decision to return to

complete anonymity after this season.  Hancock said the commissioners

were disappointed with that decision.  And he hinted that the BCS

might look at replacing the Coaches' Poll as part of the overall

formula.



jim

the bcs system is a load of crap.  college football would make way more money if

they had a playoff system and still keep the tradition and dignity of the bowl

system.  they should put the winners of the conferences and a couple of at large

teams based on the bcs standings) in a playoff system.  the rest of te teams

would stay in the bowl system so tecnically they would still be in the " bowl

season". then then they could decide the championship on the field.

--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "thegame19800869"  wrote:

>

> college football would make way more money if they had a playoff

> system and still keep the tradition and dignity of the bowl system.



It they could do that they would have done it by now. It's simply not realistic

to expect the bowls to co-exist with a play-off system.



Jerry has an article on the site outlining the difficulties.



Alan

--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "eaglealan64" <eaglealan64@...> wrote:

>

> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "thegame19800869"  wrote:

> >

> > college football would make way more money if they had a playoff

> > system and still keep the tradition and dignity of the bowl system.

>

> It they could do that they would have done it by now. It's simply not

realistic to expect the bowls to co-exist with a play-off system.

>

> Jerry has an article on the site outlining the difficulties.

>

> Alan

>I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others sports

Agreed Kevin.

There is not one BCS Champion who did not deserve it on the strength

of a season.



The same cannot be said for any other sport.



2009/6/9 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@...>:

> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "eaglealan64" <eaglealan64@...> wrote:

>>

>> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "thegame19800869"  wrote:

>> >

>> > college football would make way more money if they had a playoff

>> > system and still keep the tradition and dignity of the bowl system.

>>

>> It they could do that they would have done it by now. It's simply not

realistic to expect the bowls to co-exist with a play-off system.

>>

>> Jerry has an article on the site outlining the difficulties.

>>

>> Alan

>>I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others sports

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

2009/6/10 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@...> wrote



>

> >I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others sports

>



So you would be happy to be like the NFL and have 32 teams playing the

regular season then contesting a play-off??



Alan





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Alan Milnes <bcs@...> wrote:

>

> 2009/6/10 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@...> wrote

>

> >

> > >I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others sports

> >

>

> So you would be happy to be like the NFL and have 32 teams playing the

> regular season then contesting a play-off??

>

> Alan

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>



Thankfully, I don't think we will ever see a playoff system in NCAA Football as

long as the Bowl Committee are around.......and besides this ain't baseball or

basketball...it's a wee bit more physical than that.



The BCS aint doing that bad a job in my opinion, it's by far a better way of

ranking the teams over the course of the season than deciding the championship

on 2 or 3 major polls!

You guys all crack me up.  Everybody's caving on a playoff system using the same

shopworn assertion that "every week is a playoff in college footie".  Please,

spare me your regressive thinking.  I disagree with the claim that they are

doing a good job, quite the contrary.  Not picking on you Jason, just finally

responding to all of this mamby pamby NCAA Company Line stuff about how the

system is fine like it is.  It is not fine, in fact it is old, antiquated and

monopolistic and it needs to be changed.  It would be complicated but it could

be done. Do I have all the answers?  No.  But neither does anyone else, most

especially those in control of this system we have now.



Okay, rant is over now.  Carry on. :)



--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "Jason O'Mahony" <jayoshanks@...> wrote:

>

> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Alan Milnes <bcs@> wrote:

> >

> > 2009/6/10 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@> wrote

> >

> > >

> > > >I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others sports

> > >

> >

> > So you would be happy to be like the NFL and have 32 teams playing the

> > regular season then contesting a play-off??

> >

> > Alan

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

>

> Thankfully, I don't think we will ever see a playoff system in NCAA Football

as long as the Bowl Committee are around.......and besides this ain't baseball

or basketball...it's a wee bit more physical than that.

>

> The BCS aint doing that bad a job in my opinion, it's by far a better way of

ranking the teams over the course of the season than deciding the championship

on 2 or 3 major polls!

>

Your argument could use some explanation.  What is it that needs to change?



Under the system in place college football stages a 12 game regular

season that demands  championship contenders to play at the highest

levels each week.  There is little margin of error for performance

whether the opponent is marginal or top shelf.  Unlike any other major

sport, college football stages a single championship game and 33

"exhibition"  games at the conclusion of the season.  The BCS

championship game is second only to the Super Bowl in TV ratings while

a half dozen of the "exhibition games" outperform the NBA, MLB,and NHL

championship telecasts.



All of this has combined to sustain record levels of attendance and

lucrative broadcast contracts in the regular season and proliferating

Bowl games, er "exhibition games".



And those football crowds pay the cost of most of the rest of the

intercollegiate sports programs at the member schools, especially the

unfunded federal mandates of Title IX.



So are you suggesting to college presidents that this  "old,

antiquated and monopolistic" system needs to be changed just so a

playoff can be instituted to determine the number one team in the

country?



Better come up with something better than "combine the playoffs and

the Bowls, shorten the regular season, here is a 16 team playoff

matrix,etc..."



Those horses have been beaten to death.



If you are going to change the present system you need to have an

alternative that is better.



jim



















On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM, reidomo<mitch.agana@...> wrote:

>

>

> You guys all crack me up. Everybody's caving on a playoff system using the

> same shopworn assertion that "every week is a playoff in college footie".

> Please, spare me your regressive thinking. I disagree with the claim that

> they are doing a good job, quite the contrary. Not picking on you Jason,

> just finally responding to all of this mamby pamby NCAA Company Line stuff

> about how the system is fine like it is. It is not fine, in fact it is old,

> antiquated and monopolistic and it needs to be changed. It would be

> complicated but it could be done. Do I have all the answers? No. But neither

> does anyone else, most especially those in control of this system we have

> now.

>

> Okay, rant is over now. Carry on. :)

>

> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "Jason O'Mahony" <jayoshanks@...> wrote:

>>

>> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Alan Milnes <bcs@> wrote:

>> >

>> > 2009/6/10 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@> wrote

>> >

>> > >

>> > > >I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others

>> > > > sports

>> > >

>> >

>> > So you would be happy to be like the NFL and have 32 teams playing the

>> > regular season then contesting a play-off??

>> >

>> > Alan

>> >

>> >

>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>> >

>>

>> Thankfully, I don't think we will ever see a playoff system in NCAA

>> Football as long as the Bowl Committee are around.......and besides this

>> ain't baseball or basketball...it's a wee bit more physical than that.

>>

>> The BCS aint doing that bad a job in my opinion, it's by far a better way

>> of ranking the teams over the course of the season than deciding the

>> championship on 2 or 3 major polls!

>>

>

>

System is doing fine if what you're after is profits for colleges.  But how do

we know that a playoff system would not register even more attendance and even

more profits for colleges?  More often than not one loss means you're done and I

don't think it's fair that a team that might be the best in college football

would be foreclosed from challenging for the championship because of one loss,

especially if the teams playing for that championship have lost themselves.  I'm

not a Texas fan but how can anyone look at the system last year and say that was

fair?  USC?  Not my favorite team either but one loss to a team that won 9 games

and they are precluded from playing for the championship later in the season

when it looks like they could beat any of the teams still standing at the top. 

Utah?  They might not come from what most people would feel is the strongest

conference but all they did was win all their games.  How exactly were Florida

and Oklahoma more deserving?  Really.



BCS TV ratings are high, in my opinion, not so much because of the brilliance of

the BCS system but more so because college football is a huge rage in this

country and they have packaged the BCS very well -- not to be confused with

organizing it so that it is fair.  Put a playoff together and I think we would

see comparable or better ratings than we have now.



So, yes, in response to your question, I am saying to these financial

executives, I mean college presidents that the system needs to be changed

because while these programs might fund the bulk of intercollegiate athletics,

the fans indirectly fund the programs in that their attendance and utter

zealotry fuels the phenomenon that is college football and creates the huge

financial opportunity for the colleges to derive huge rewards from sponsors -

and in the end the fans' satisfaction with the system should be considered among

those we deem most important.



Just because the system makes a lot of money and has huge TV ratings does not

mean it is a good system, especially when there is every reason to believe that

a playoff system would very likely provide more money and higher ratings on TV,

as well as spread the enthusiasm for the post season across to regions other

than the two from which the present competitors come from.  When people say

things like "give me something better than combine the playoffs and the Bowls,

shorten the regular season, here is a 16 team playoff matrix,etc..." I ask first

that s/he explain what is wrong with doing that and I also wonder why it is that

we have to be satisfied without a system that provides a playoff?  Anything can

be done if the will to do it is there.  Just because it has been beaten to death

and shot down by self-interested financial behemoths in the past does render it

illegitimate either.



I don't pretend to have all of the answers but neither did Henry Ford and Thomas

Edison, or those patriots drafting the Constitution of the US, or those smart

guys who developed the internet -- all of whom were willing to try something new

so that the state of matters could perhaps get better.  I just don't understand,

with due respect,  this closed-minded approach to a serious deficiency in the

system.



MA





--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Jim Mengel <jmmengel@...> wrote:

>

> Your argument could use some explanation.  What is it that needs to change?

>

> Under the system in place college football stages a 12 game regular

> season that demands  championship contenders to play at the highest

> levels each week.  There is little margin of error for performance

> whether the opponent is marginal or top shelf.  Unlike any other major

> sport, college football stages a single championship game and 33

> "exhibition"  games at the conclusion of the season.  The BCS

> championship game is second only to the Super Bowl in TV ratings while

> a half dozen of the "exhibition games" outperform the NBA, MLB,and NHL

> championship telecasts.

>

> All of this has combined to sustain record levels of attendance and

> lucrative broadcast contracts in the regular season and proliferating

> Bowl games, er "exhibition games".

>

> And those football crowds pay the cost of most of the rest of the

> intercollegiate sports programs at the member schools, especially the

> unfunded federal mandates of Title IX.

>

> So are you suggesting to college presidents that this  "old,

> antiquated and monopolistic" system needs to be changed just so a

> playoff can be instituted to determine the number one team in the

> country?

>

> Better come up with something better than "combine the playoffs and

> the Bowls, shorten the regular season, here is a 16 team playoff

> matrix,etc..."

>

> Those horses have been beaten to death.

>

> If you are going to change the present system you need to have an

> alternative that is better.

>

> jim

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM, reidomo<mitch.agana@...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > You guys all crack me up. Everybody's caving on a playoff system using the

> > same shopworn assertion that "every week is a playoff in college footie".

> > Please, spare me your regressive thinking. I disagree with the claim that

> > they are doing a good job, quite the contrary. Not picking on you Jason,

> > just finally responding to all of this mamby pamby NCAA Company Line stuff

> > about how the system is fine like it is. It is not fine, in fact it is old,

> > antiquated and monopolistic and it needs to be changed. It would be

> > complicated but it could be done. Do I have all the answers? No. But neither

> > does anyone else, most especially those in control of this system we have

> > now.

> >

> > Okay, rant is over now. Carry on. :)

> >

> > --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "Jason O'Mahony" <jayoshanks@> wrote:

> >>

> >> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Alan Milnes <bcs@> wrote:

> >> >

> >> > 2009/6/10 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@> wrote

> >> >

> >> > >

> >> > > >I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others

> >> > > > sports

> >> > >

> >> >

> >> > So you would be happy to be like the NFL and have 32 teams playing the

> >> > regular season then contesting a play-off??

> >> >

> >> > Alan

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >> >

> >>

> >> Thankfully, I don't think we will ever see a playoff system in NCAA

> >> Football as long as the Bowl Committee are around.......and besides this

> >> ain't baseball or basketball...it's a wee bit more physical than that.

> >>

> >> The BCS aint doing that bad a job in my opinion, it's by far a better way

> >> of ranking the teams over the course of the season than deciding the

> >> championship on 2 or 3 major polls!

> >>

> >

> >

>

The BCS is definitely imperfect. Ideally, a bracket system as large as college

basketball would be great. However, that is not going to happen. Why is that?

Politics, Tradition, and Medical. Politics are there just like our own

government. Tradition has never allowed a true playoff system. Medical - You

have to remember these are 18-22 year-old kids. They are not professionals by

any means. Football is in general a huge contact and physical sport. It takes

temporary or permanent tolls on all of those kids so we can sit back and cheer,

get pissed off, or drink another beer. If we cut game times in half like that of

college basketball (30-40 minutes of play), then we could put forth a true

bracket system and play it on the field without putting as much physical stress

on these kids. That way there will be less injuries so when the time comes for

them to go to the NFL, they are healthier in a way. (Are they more prepared?

NO!) Is this thinking against tradition and politics? YES! Will this happen? NO!

Is this crazy talk? YES! But, like the? BCS, it does offer a different means of

thinking. Just remember these are kids....they are out there wanting to have fun

without permanently hurting their health.





-----Original Message-----

From: thegame19800869 <thegame19800869@...>

To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 8:20 pm

Subject: [collegebcs] Re: BCS Administrator on Rose Bowl and NonAQ.

















the bcs system is a load of crap. college football would make way more money if

they had a playoff system and still keep the tradition and dignity of the bowl

system. they should put the winners of the conferences and a couple of at large

teams based on the bcs standings) in a playoff system. the rest of te teams

would stay in the bowl system so tecnically they would still be in the " bowl

season". then then they could decide the championship on the field.

















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

thegame19800869:



>> then then they could decide the championship on the field. <<



Bowl teams play 13 or 14 games during the season. I'd say that's "deciding it on

the field."



Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

I'd like to chime in with a couple of observations.  First, it is very difficult

to compare football to baseball, basketball, and hockey because football is the

only sport that uses a one game playoff whether in college or pro.  The other

sports use a 7 game series to advance rounds.  So if we'd like to compare

"ratings", lets compare the total number of eyeballs for the series rather than

looking at one game.  I don't have the numbers, but if you look at the World

Series or the NBA finals as examples, I'd bet that there are more eyeballs

watching those games as a whole than are watching the one game that is the BCS

championship.  (Just an observation).



There are many people that feel that a playoff would lead to increased ratings

and increased viewership.  An 8 team playoff would produce 7 games with national

implications.  There aren't too many people that would argue that those 7 games

would HIGHLY outdraw the viewership of the 7 biggest bowl games on the schedule.

College football tends to be a regional sport.  A playoff would make it a more

national event like pro football is.  Would it affect the lower "exhibition"

games.  Sure.  But my feeling is that the impact would be minimal at best.  And

looking at the stadiums for these other bowls is almost humorous.  They don't

sell out and most of the time they are half empty.



I would argue that the playoff is better for the reasons stated above.  Maybe

I've beaten the same horse, but I'm using a different whip :)



Just some thoughts.  I know it isn't going to happen, but I thought I'd throw a

changeup for the argument.







   ----- Original Message -----

   From: Jim Mengel

   To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com

   Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:55 PM

   Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Re: BCS Administrator on Rose Bowl and NonAQ.











   Your argument could use some explanation. What is it that needs to change?



   Under the system in place college football stages a 12 game regular

   season that demands championship contenders to play at the highest

   levels each week. There is little margin of error for performance

   whether the opponent is marginal or top shelf. Unlike any other major

   sport, college football stages a single championship game and 33

   "exhibition" games at the conclusion of the season. The BCS

   championship game is second only to the Super Bowl in TV ratings while

   a half dozen of the "exhibition games" outperform the NBA, MLB,and NHL

   championship telecasts.



   All of this has combined to sustain record levels of attendance and

   lucrative broadcast contracts in the regular season and proliferating

   Bowl games, er "exhibition games".



   And those football crowds pay the cost of most of the rest of the

   intercollegiate sports programs at the member schools, especially the

   unfunded federal mandates of Title IX.



   So are you suggesting to college presidents that this "old,

   antiquated and monopolistic" system needs to be changed just so a

   playoff can be instituted to determine the number one team in the

   country?



   Better come up with something better than "combine the playoffs and

   the Bowls, shorten the regular season, here is a 16 team playoff

   matrix,etc..."



   Those horses have been beaten to death.



   If you are going to change the present system you need to have an

   alternative that is better.



   jim



   On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM, reidomo<mitch.agana@...> wrote:

   >

   >

   > You guys all crack me up. Everybody's caving on a playoff system using the

   > same shopworn assertion that "every week is a playoff in college footie".

   > Please, spare me your regressive thinking. I disagree with the claim that

   > they are doing a good job, quite the contrary. Not picking on you Jason,

   > just finally responding to all of this mamby pamby NCAA Company Line stuff

   > about how the system is fine like it is. It is not fine, in fact it is old,

   > antiquated and monopolistic and it needs to be changed. It would be

   > complicated but it could be done. Do I have all the answers? No. But neither

   > does anyone else, most especially those in control of this system we have

   > now.

   >

   > Okay, rant is over now. Carry on. :)

   >

   > --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "Jason O'Mahony" <jayoshanks@...> wrote:

   >>

   >> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Alan Milnes <bcs@> wrote:

   >> >

   >> > 2009/6/10 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@> wrote

   >> >

   >> > >

   >> > > >I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others

   >> > > > sports

   >> > >

   >> >

   >> > So you would be happy to be like the NFL and have 32 teams playing the

   >> > regular season then contesting a play-off??

   >> >

   >> > Alan

   >> >

   >> >

   >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   >> >

   >>

   >> Thankfully, I don't think we will ever see a playoff system in NCAA

   >> Football as long as the Bowl Committee are around.......and besides this

   >> ain't baseball or basketball...it's a wee bit more physical than that.

   >>

   >> The BCS aint doing that bad a job in my opinion, it's by far a better way

   >> of ranking the teams over the course of the season than deciding the

   >> championship on 2 or 3 major polls!

   >>

   >

   >









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You may be using a new whip, but the horse is still dead.



Both the Rose and the Fiesta Bowls, which are, after all, just

"exhibition games, beat any game of the NBA finals in TV ratings. Over

the five games the two sports were probably close in total ratings

given the fall-off of the Sugar and Orange Bowls, but what does that

mean when 4 of the 5 BCS games don't "mean anything"?



But the comparison is beside the point since all the BCS games,

including the Orange, finished in the top ten in the 18-49 Men

demographic.



Attendance at all the Bowl games still was around 1.7 million, an

average of 50,000 per, higher than the regular season.  And there were

no repeat ticket buyers like you find in all playoff situations.



It is dubious, at best, to claim that calling games "play-offs"

results in increased viewership since most of the 119 teams represent

small TV markets. Va Tech versus Cincinnati will not automatically

turn on TV sets no matter what you call it.



But a playoff will lead to reduced attendance unless the games are

played at the higher seeds home stadia.



Which, of course, returns us to the original question. What is gained

by eliminating most of the Bowls to stage a playoff?  Or more

important, what is lost?



It is pretty clear that the loss is much greater than the gain.











On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Jim Mengel<jmmengel@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 5:21 PM, reidomo<mitch.agana@...> wrote:

>>

>>

>> System is doing fine if what you're after is profits for colleges.

>

> Was it also supposed to bail out GM and Chrysler?

>>

>> MA

>>

>> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Jim Mengel <jmmengel@...> wrote:

>>>

>>> Your argument could use some explanation. What is it that needs to change?

>>>

>>> Under the system in place college football stages a 12 game regular

>>> season that demands championship contenders to play at the highest

>>> levels each week. There is little margin of error for performance

>>> whether the opponent is marginal or top shelf. Unlike any other major

>>> sport, college football stages a single championship game and 33

>>> "exhibition" games at the conclusion of the season. The BCS

>>> championship game is second only to the Super Bowl in TV ratings while

>>> a half dozen of the "exhibition games" outperform the NBA, MLB,and NHL

>>> championship telecasts.

>>>

>>> All of this has combined to sustain record levels of attendance and

>>> lucrative broadcast contracts in the regular season and proliferating

>>> Bowl games, er "exhibition games".

>>>

>>> And those football crowds pay the cost of most of the rest of the

>>> intercollegiate sports programs at the member schools, especially the

>>> unfunded federal mandates of Title IX.

>>>

>>> So are you suggesting to college presidents that this "old,

>>> antiquated and monopolistic" system needs to be changed just so a

>>> playoff can be instituted to determine the number one team in the

>>> country?

>>>

>>> Better come up with something better than "combine the playoffs and

>>> the Bowls, shorten the regular season, here is a 16 team playoff

>>> matrix,etc..."

>>>

>>> Those horses have been beaten to death.

>>>

>>> If you are going to change the present system you need to have an

>>> alternative that is better.

>>>

>>> jim

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM, reidomo<mitch.agana@...> wrote:

>>> >

>>> >

>>> > You guys all crack me up. Everybody's caving on a playoff system using

>>> > the

>>> > same shopworn assertion that "every week is a playoff in college

>>> > footie".

>>> > Please, spare me your regressive thinking. I disagree with the claim

>>> > that

>>> > they are doing a good job, quite the contrary. Not picking on you Jason,

>>> > just finally responding to all of this mamby pamby NCAA Company Line

>>> > stuff

>>> > about how the system is fine like it is. It is not fine, in fact it is

>>> > old,

>>> > antiquated and monopolistic and it needs to be changed. It would be

>>> > complicated but it could be done. Do I have all the answers? No. But

>>> > neither

>>> > does anyone else, most especially those in control of this system we

>>> > have

>>> > now.

>>> >

>>> > Okay, rant is over now. Carry on. :)

>>> >

>>> > --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "Jason O'Mahony" <jayoshanks@> wrote:

>>> >>

>>> >> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Alan Milnes <bcs@> wrote:

>>> >> >

>>> >> > 2009/6/10 Emmet O'Brien <obrienemmet@> wrote

>>> >> >

>>> >> > >

>>> >> > > >I agreed they should have a playoff system, like they do in others

>>> >> > > > sports

>>> >> > >

>>> >> >

>>> >> > So you would be happy to be like the NFL and have 32 teams playing

>>> >> > the

>>> >> > regular season then contesting a play-off??

>>> >> >

>>> >> > Alan

>>> >> >

>>> >> >

>>> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>> >> >

>>> >>

>>> >> Thankfully, I don't think we will ever see a playoff system in NCAA

>>> >> Football as long as the Bowl Committee are around.......and besides

>>> >> this

>>> >> ain't baseball or basketball...it's a wee bit more physical than that.

>>> >>

>>> >> The BCS aint doing that bad a job in my opinion, it's by far a better

>>> >> way

>>> >> of ranking the teams over the course of the season than deciding the

>>> >> championship on 2 or 3 major polls!

>>> >>

>>> >

>>> >

>>>

>>

>>

>