Oski87 said:

---

There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.

---

I agree with everything you wrote. I don't think it was a terrible blunder to try the playoff system because it seemed that a critical mass of fans wanted it, but I've come to see it as an unfortunate mistake.

We've voluntarily sacrificed the incredible playoff-like regular season that existed before they went to the final four model. Regular season losses were just so much more damaging to teams, and the stakes grew with each game ever larger for the few teams in the hunt.

Even aside from the impact on the regular season, the postseason is worse too. The playoffs have pushed the bowls into irrelevancy. The bowls that are playoff games aren't really significant in themselves anymore. The fact that a team is playing in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl is trivial now in comparison to the fact that it's a playoff game. The Rose Bowl is the poster child for the damage wrought by the playoffs (and to a smaller extent, the BCS). It used to be second only to the Super Bowl as the greatest game in football. Now it's essentially undifferentiated among the elite bowls, whose prestige are now tied to their status as playoff games.

The bowls were great in part because they offered such broad opportunity for success. Winning a high level bowl game was considered a big achievement even if it wasn't for the national title. Match-ups like the Rose Bowl were rivalry games in a sense. The sense of being part of a tradition was palpable as in a rivalry game. Winning any bowl could warm up the holidays, as the team did for Cal fans five times (2003 Insight, 2005 Vegas, 2006 Holiday, 2007 Armed Forces, 2008 Emerald...to my surprise that list came from memory) in the Tedford era.

The problem is the playoffs offer such a valuable commercial opportunity for the businesses that enable the sport. Networks and conferences (and by extension, schools) can make a huge amount of money off of each additional playoff game they can broadcast and I'm afraid this inducement is incontrovertible. This new era has been accompanied by dramatic conference re-alignments and the rise of superconferences containing more than 12 teams. Both of these things in my view have been negative developments.

My ideal system was this: keep the old bowl system with their agreements generated between the bowl and the conferences. It was unfair, but in the very natural way that things are unfair: better conferences and teams had better bowls and more influence to get the more prized bowl. Old tie-ins are resumed. The Pac-12 and Big Ten champ play every year in the Rose Bowl. To remedy the co-national champion problem, I propose this solution. If after the bowls are played and post-bowl rankings issued, the #1 and #2 teams have the same record they shall play in a national title game (which itself is not a bowl). Otherwise the #1 team is national champion.

Oski87 said:

---

There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.

---

Apply your logic to the NFL--replace the playoffs with a beauty contest and votes of the sports writers?
In 2004, at the end of the regular season, computers whose algorithms were public, had us neck and neck with #1 undefeated SC (our only loss on their home field in a game decided by special teams). The sports writers and coach's screwed us. I'd have loved a chance to prove we were the best on a neutral field.

Cave Bear said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.

---

I agree with everything you wrote. I don't think it was a terrible blunder to try the playoff system because it seemed that a critical mass of fans wanted it, but I've come to see it as unfortunate mistake.

We've voluntarily sacrificed the incredible playoff-like regular season that existed before they went to the final four model. Regular season losses were just so much more damaging to teams, and the stakes with each game grew ever larger for the few teams in the hunt.

Even aside from the impact on the regular season, the postseason is worse too. The playoffs have pushed the bowls into irrelevancy. The bowls that are playoff games aren't really significant in themselves anymore. The fact that a team is playing in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl is trivial now in comparison to the fact that it's a playoff game. The Rose Bowl is the poster child for the damage wrought by the playoffs (and to a smaller extent, the BCS). It used to be second only to the Super Bowl as the greatest game in football. Now it's essentially undifferentiated among the elite bowls, whose prestige are now tied to their status as playoff games.

The bowls were great in part because they offered such broad opportunity for success. Winning a high level bowl game was considered a big achievement even if it wasn't for the national title. Match-ups like the Rose Bowl were rivalry games in a sense. The sense of being part of a tradition was palpable as in a rivalry game. Winning any bowl could warm up the holidays, as the team did for Cal fans five times (2003 Insight, 2005 Vegas, 2006 Holiday, 2007 Armed Forces, 2008 Emerald...to my surprise that list came from memory) in the Tedford era.

The problem is the playoffs offer such a valuable commercial opportunity for the businesses that enable the sport. Networks and conferences (and by extension, schools) can make a huge amount of money off of each additional playoff game they can broadcast and I'm afraid this inducement is incontrovertible. This new era has been accompanied by dramatic conference re-alignments and the rise of superconferences containing more than 12 teams. Both of these things in my view have been negative developments.

My ideal system was this: keep the old bowl system with their agreements generated between the bowl and the conferences. It was unfair, but in the very natural way that things are unfair: better conferences and teams had better bowls and more influence to get the more prized bowl. Old tie-ins are resumed. The Pac-12 and Big Ten champ play every year in the Rose Bowl. To remedy the co-national champion problem, I propose this solution. If after the bowls are played and post-bowl rankings issued, the #1 and #2 teams have the same record they shall play in a national title game (which itself is not a bowl). Otherwise the #1 team is national champion.

---

This was what I originally argued for too--traditional bowls plus one. The vote for the Championship Game being held after all the bowls are played (with only bowl winners eligible). That would restore tradition (the great thing about college football) and make most of the bowls interesting and relevant again. Only one extra game for two teams. Maybe have it the week before the Super Bowl.

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.

---

Apply your logic to the NFL--replace the playoffs with a beauty contest and votes of the sports writers?
In 2004, at the end of the regular season, computers whose algorithms were public, had us neck and neck with #1 undefeated SC (our only loss on their home field in a game decided by special teams). The sports writers and coach's screwed us. I'd have loved a chance to prove we were the best on a neutral field.

---

It's not at all assured that we would have been picked over Texas and Utah.

The old system wasn't perfectly rational and it was prone to favor elite programs but in my opinion it was more enjoyable. The season is now reduced to the playoffs. More was lost than has been gained in the exchange. We didn't need this radical of a solution to produce a 'true' national champion. There had only been 4 co-champions in the 20 years before the BCS. A bowls +1 model could have eliminated all of those controversies.

Let's also not pretend the current system is perfectly rational like the NFL's. Regular season scheduling is done by programs and conferences and the results are totally unequal. The decision to exclude a team from the playoffs is still a beauty contest.

calumnus said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.

---

I agree with everything you wrote. I don't think it was a terrible blunder to try the playoff system because it seemed that a critical mass of fans wanted it, but I've come to see it as unfortunate mistake.

We've voluntarily sacrificed the incredible playoff-like regular season that existed before they went to the final four model. Regular season losses were just so much more damaging to teams, and the stakes with each game grew ever larger for the few teams in the hunt.

Even aside from the impact on the regular season, the postseason is worse too. The playoffs have pushed the bowls into irrelevancy. The bowls that are playoff games aren't really significant in themselves anymore. The fact that a team is playing in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl is trivial now in comparison to the fact that it's a playoff game. The Rose Bowl is the poster child for the damage wrought by the playoffs (and to a smaller extent, the BCS). It used to be second only to the Super Bowl as the greatest game in football. Now it's essentially undifferentiated among the elite bowls, whose prestige are now tied to their status as playoff games.

The bowls were great in part because they offered such broad opportunity for success. Winning a high level bowl game was considered a big achievement even if it wasn't for the national title. Match-ups like the Rose Bowl were rivalry games in a sense. The sense of being part of a tradition was palpable as in a rivalry game. Winning any bowl could warm up the holidays, as the team did for Cal fans five times (2003 Insight, 2005 Vegas, 2006 Holiday, 2007 Armed Forces, 2008 Emerald...to my surprise that list came from memory) in the Tedford era.

The problem is the playoffs offer such a valuable commercial opportunity for the businesses that enable the sport. Networks and conferences (and by extension, schools) can make a huge amount of money off of each additional playoff game they can broadcast and I'm afraid this inducement is incontrovertible. This new era has been accompanied by dramatic conference re-alignments and the rise of superconferences containing more than 12 teams. Both of these things in my view have been negative developments.

My ideal system was this: keep the old bowl system with their agreements generated between the bowl and the conferences. It was unfair, but in the very natural way that things are unfair: better conferences and teams had better bowls and more influence to get the more prized bowl. Old tie-ins are resumed. The Pac-12 and Big Ten champ play every year in the Rose Bowl. To remedy the co-national champion problem, I propose this solution. If after the bowls are played and post-bowl rankings issued, the #1 and #2 teams have the same record they shall play in a national title game (which itself is not a bowl). Otherwise the #1 team is national champion.

---

This was what I originally argued for too--traditional bowls plus one. The vote for the Championship Game being held after all the bowls are played (with only bowl winners eligible). That would restore tradition (the great thing about college football) and make most of the bowls interesting and relevant again. Only one extra game for two teams. Maybe have it the week before the Super Bowl.

---

That is such a good idea it's a real shame it'll never happen...

Cave Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.

---

I agree with everything you wrote. I don't think it was a terrible blunder to try the playoff system because it seemed that a critical mass of fans wanted it, but I've come to see it as unfortunate mistake.

We've voluntarily sacrificed the incredible playoff-like regular season that existed before they went to the final four model. Regular season losses were just so much more damaging to teams, and the stakes with each game grew ever larger for the few teams in the hunt.

Even aside from the impact on the regular season, the postseason is worse too. The playoffs have pushed the bowls into irrelevancy. The bowls that are playoff games aren't really significant in themselves anymore. The fact that a team is playing in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl is trivial now in comparison to the fact that it's a playoff game. The Rose Bowl is the poster child for the damage wrought by the playoffs (and to a smaller extent, the BCS). It used to be second only to the Super Bowl as the greatest game in football. Now it's essentially undifferentiated among the elite bowls, whose prestige are now tied to their status as playoff games.

The bowls were great in part because they offered such broad opportunity for success. Winning a high level bowl game was considered a big achievement even if it wasn't for the national title. Match-ups like the Rose Bowl were rivalry games in a sense. The sense of being part of a tradition was palpable as in a rivalry game. Winning any bowl could warm up the holidays, as the team did for Cal fans five times (2003 Insight, 2005 Vegas, 2006 Holiday, 2007 Armed Forces, 2008 Emerald...to my surprise that list came from memory) in the Tedford era.

The problem is the playoffs offer such a valuable commercial opportunity for the businesses that enable the sport. Networks and conferences (and by extension, schools) can make a huge amount of money off of each additional playoff game they can broadcast and I'm afraid this inducement is incontrovertible. This new era has been accompanied by dramatic conference re-alignments and the rise of superconferences containing more than 12 teams. Both of these things in my view have been negative developments.

My ideal system was this: keep the old bowl system with their agreements generated between the bowl and the conferences. It was unfair, but in the very natural way that things are unfair: better conferences and teams had better bowls and more influence to get the more prized bowl. Old tie-ins are resumed. The Pac-12 and Big Ten champ play every year in the Rose Bowl. To remedy the co-national champion problem, I propose this solution. If after the bowls are played and post-bowl rankings issued, the #1 and #2 teams have the same record they shall play in a national title game (which itself is not a bowl). Otherwise the #1 team is national champion.

---

This was what I originally argued for too--traditional bowls plus one. The vote for the Championship Game being held after all the bowls are played (with only bowl winners eligible). That would restore tradition (the great thing about college football) and make most of the bowls interesting and relevant again. Only one extra game for two teams. Maybe have it the week before the Super Bowl.

---

That is such a good idea it's a real shame it'll never happen...

---

The PAC-12, the B1G and the Rose Bowl could secede from the BCS, say they are restoring the traditional Rose Bowl and then force the new format.

calumnus said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

There is no reason for the playoff. It is ridiculous that the Pac 12 and the Big 10 let itself get swayed by the SEC crew. Or at least bring back the - one and two only. Why are Georgia and Alabama even in the current conversation? Clemson and Oklahoma are clearly the best teams - why make them go through some horrible SEC grinder where some cheap shot on the QBs will determine the fate of a team in a second game?

The BCS was a much better solution. 8 teams is a joke - 3 additional games to find out what everyone already knew? Cinderella is not a valid reason to expand a playoff. Hoping for some unworthy to come out and topple someone who deserved it more through the play through the year is not a reason to expand.

There have been no instances where a #1 or #2 has not won. Let it go.

---

I agree with everything you wrote. I don't think it was a terrible blunder to try the playoff system because it seemed that a critical mass of fans wanted it, but I've come to see it as unfortunate mistake.

We've voluntarily sacrificed the incredible playoff-like regular season that existed before they went to the final four model. Regular season losses were just so much more damaging to teams, and the stakes with each game grew ever larger for the few teams in the hunt.

Even aside from the impact on the regular season, the postseason is worse too. The playoffs have pushed the bowls into irrelevancy. The bowls that are playoff games aren't really significant in themselves anymore. The fact that a team is playing in the Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl is trivial now in comparison to the fact that it's a playoff game. The Rose Bowl is the poster child for the damage wrought by the playoffs (and to a smaller extent, the BCS). It used to be second only to the Super Bowl as the greatest game in football. Now it's essentially undifferentiated among the elite bowls, whose prestige are now tied to their status as playoff games.

The bowls were great in part because they offered such broad opportunity for success. Winning a high level bowl game was considered a big achievement even if it wasn't for the national title. Match-ups like the Rose Bowl were rivalry games in a sense. The sense of being part of a tradition was palpable as in a rivalry game. Winning any bowl could warm up the holidays, as the team did for Cal fans five times (2003 Insight, 2005 Vegas, 2006 Holiday, 2007 Armed Forces, 2008 Emerald...to my surprise that list came from memory) in the Tedford era.

The problem is the playoffs offer such a valuable commercial opportunity for the businesses that enable the sport. Networks and conferences (and by extension, schools) can make a huge amount of money off of each additional playoff game they can broadcast and I'm afraid this inducement is incontrovertible. This new era has been accompanied by dramatic conference re-alignments and the rise of superconferences containing more than 12 teams. Both of these things in my view have been negative developments.

My ideal system was this: keep the old bowl system with their agreements generated between the bowl and the conferences. It was unfair, but in the very natural way that things are unfair: better conferences and teams had better bowls and more influence to get the more prized bowl. Old tie-ins are resumed. The Pac-12 and Big Ten champ play every year in the Rose Bowl. To remedy the co-national champion problem, I propose this solution. If after the bowls are played and post-bowl rankings issued, the #1 and #2 teams have the same record they shall play in a national title game (which itself is not a bowl). Otherwise the #1 team is national champion.

---

This was what I originally argued for too--traditional bowls plus one. The vote for the Championship Game being held after all the bowls are played (with only bowl winners eligible). That would restore tradition (the great thing about college football) and make most of the bowls interesting and relevant again. Only one extra game for two teams. Maybe have it the week before the Super Bowl.

---

That is such a good idea it's a real shame it'll never happen...

---

The PAC-12, the B1G and the Rose Bowl could secede from the BCS, say they are restoring the traditional Rose Bowl and then force the new format.

---

Will the networks let them though?

Cave Bear said:

---

Let's also not pretend the current system is perfectly rational like the NFL's. Regular season scheduling is done by programs and conferences and the results are totally unequal. The decision to exclude a team from the playoffs is still a beauty contest.

---

The same could be said about the decision to include a team in a bowl game. College football, given the large number of teams and short season, cannot possibly have anything approaching "balanced" scheduling.

To me, though, this is an argument FOR a playoff system, but also one that is large enough to include any team with a credible argument for being the best in the country (8 teams probably does that, 12 or 16 definitely). Having only 2 or 4 teams in the playoff inevitably leaves someone out.

That said, if you don't particularly care about having an undisputed National Champion, I understand the preference for the tradition of the bowl system. If you do care about that, then I don't think there's a good argument for going back to bowls only.

sycasey said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Let's also not pretend the current system is perfectly rational like the NFL's. Regular season scheduling is done by programs and conferences and the results are totally unequal. The decision to exclude a team from the playoffs is still a beauty contest.

---

The same could be said about the decision to include a team in a bowl game. College football, given the large number of teams and short season, cannot possibly have anything approaching "balanced" scheduling.

To me, though, this is an argument FOR a playoff system, but also one that is large enough to include any team with a credible argument for being the best in the country (8 teams probably does that, 12 or 16 definitely). Having only 2 or 4 teams in the playoff inevitably leaves someone out.

That said, if you don't particularly care about having an undisputed National Champion, I understand the preference for the tradition of the bowl system. If you do care about that, then I don't think there's a good argument for going back to bowls only.

---

That is why requiring the national champion to be the champion of their conference is a good criteria. How can you say you are the National Champ if you didn't even win your conference? That gives you P5 plus the three best champs from the others (or 6 teams can have a play in game). PAC-12 hosts the Rose. On the other hand, traditional bowls like the Rose Bowl always pitted conference champs, so traditional bowls plus one achieves much the same.

If Cal wins the PAC-12, and wins the Rose Bowl, we likely get invited to the NCG, but if we get snubbed, we are all still going to be very, very happy.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Let's also not pretend the current system is perfectly rational like the NFL's. Regular season scheduling is done by programs and conferences and the results are totally unequal. The decision to exclude a team from the playoffs is still a beauty contest.

---

The same could be said about the decision to include a team in a bowl game. College football, given the large number of teams and short season, cannot possibly have anything approaching "balanced" scheduling.

To me, though, this is an argument FOR a playoff system, but also one that is large enough to include any team with a credible argument for being the best in the country (8 teams probably does that, 12 or 16 definitely). Having only 2 or 4 teams in the playoff inevitably leaves someone out.

That said, if you don't particularly care about having an undisputed National Champion, I understand the preference for the tradition of the bowl system. If you do care about that, then I don't think there's a good argument for going back to bowls only.

---

That is why requiring the national champion to be the champion of their conference is a good criteria.

---

would have no problem with that requirement. 5 teams and 4 slots would retain some notion of quality wins in and out of conference, because there is always the 5th team left out for whatever reason is deemed proper at the time. I'd have a feeling the larger 14 team conferences would cry that it's unfair and the p12 and B12 champs would be diluted products from smaller pools, but 14 is a stupid number to have anyway.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Let's also not pretend the current system is perfectly rational like the NFL's. Regular season scheduling is done by programs and conferences and the results are totally unequal. The decision to exclude a team from the playoffs is still a beauty contest.

---

The same could be said about the decision to include a team in a bowl game. College football, given the large number of teams and short season, cannot possibly have anything approaching "balanced" scheduling.

To me, though, this is an argument FOR a playoff system, but also one that is large enough to include any team with a credible argument for being the best in the country (8 teams probably does that, 12 or 16 definitely). Having only 2 or 4 teams in the playoff inevitably leaves someone out.

That said, if you don't particularly care about having an undisputed National Champion, I understand the preference for the tradition of the bowl system. If you do care about that, then I don't think there's a good argument for going back to bowls only.

---

That is why requiring the national champion to be the champion of their conference is a good criteria. How can you say you are the National Champ if you didn't even win your conference? That gives you P5 plus the three best champs from the others (or 6 teams can have a play in game). PAC-12 hosts the Rose. On the other hand, traditional bowls like the Rose Bowl always pitted conference champs, so traditional bowls plus one achieves much the same.

If Cal wins the PAC-12, and wins the Rose Bowl, we likely get invited to the NCG, but if we get snubbed, we are all still going to be very, very happy.

---

Teams can't even play balanced schedules within their own conferences these days though. Conceivably there could be a team that didn't win their conference but would have with a different draw. I think there needs to be room for some wild card entries, though I do agree with the principle of including all conference champions (Power 5 at minimum).

What incentive exists for any of the "old" bowl games (Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl) to ever go back to their "traditional" match ups?

The Rose Bowl is dead. The 21st century goal is to make the "playoff" and wishing for Cal to play on NYD in Pasadena is now for us sentimental fools.

bluehenbear said:

---

What incentive exists for any of the "old" bowl games (Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl) to ever go back to their "traditional" match ups?

The Rose Bowl is dead. The 21st century goal is to make the "playoff" and wishing for Cal to play on NYD in Pasadena is now for us sentimental fools.

---

I think the Rose Bowl committee would love to go back to the traditional game and their own ability to directly negotiate a TV deal. Not having USC is going to cost them tons of money. They were the most reluctant Bowl to join the BCS. They really wanted Cal (if not SC) in 2004.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Let's also not pretend the current system is perfectly rational like the NFL's. Regular season scheduling is done by programs and conferences and the results are totally unequal. The decision to exclude a team from the playoffs is still a beauty contest.

---

The same could be said about the decision to include a team in a bowl game. College football, given the large number of teams and short season, cannot possibly have anything approaching "balanced" scheduling.

To me, though, this is an argument FOR a playoff system, but also one that is large enough to include any team with a credible argument for being the best in the country (8 teams probably does that, 12 or 16 definitely). Having only 2 or 4 teams in the playoff inevitably leaves someone out.

That said, if you don't particularly care about having an undisputed National Champion, I understand the preference for the tradition of the bowl system. If you do care about that, then I don't think there's a good argument for going back to bowls only.

---

That is why requiring the national champion to be the champion of their conference is a good criteria. How can you say you are the National Champ if you didn't even win your conference? That gives you P5 plus the three best champs from the others (or 6 teams can have a play in game). PAC-12 hosts the Rose. On the other hand, traditional bowls like the Rose Bowl always pitted conference champs, so traditional bowls plus one achieves much the same.

If Cal wins the PAC-12, and wins the Rose Bowl, we likely get invited to the NCG, but if we get snubbed, we are all still going to be very, very happy.

---

Teams can't even play balanced schedules within their own conferences these days though. Conceivably there could be a team that didn't win their conference but would have with a different draw. I think there needs to be room for some wild card entries, though I do agree with the principle of including all conference champions (Power 5 at minimum).

---

One good thing about having P5 teams get in through their respective league championships is it removes the incentive for P5 teams to schedule OOC patsies to win the "undefeated or one-loss" ESPN judged beauty contest at the end of the season.

bluehenbear said:

---

What incentive exists for any of the "old" bowl games (Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl) to ever go back to their "traditional" match ups?

The Rose Bowl is dead. The 21st century goal is to make the "playoff" and wishing for Cal to play on NYD in Pasadena is now for us sentimental fools.

---

It's not the bowls that have a disincentive, it's the commercial organizations which dictate the postseason structure above the bowls that do--the conferences and networks. I'm sure the Rose Bowl as an institution would be thrilled beyond belief to return to an era where they are again a premier event in American sports.