Skip to comments.Bowl Championship Splendor: The golden age of college football
Posted on 12/27/2013 12:03:57 PM PST by rhema
College football wasnt always like this. The eyes of the nation werent always riveted on a massive stadium in a tiny town in southeastern Alabama, wondering whether the two-time defending national champion Crimson Tide could reallyagainst all probabilitybe knocked off by archrival Auburn. They werent always glued a week later to a game in Big Ten country, wondering whether Michigan State could really hand Ohio State its first loss in two years and knock the Buckeyes out of the national title picture. No, the race for the national championship wasnt always so exciting. In fact, not that long ago there wasnt even a national championshipat least one decided by anything other than a purely subjective vote of sportswriters or coaches. There wasnt a clear national champion because there wasnt an official national championship game.
All of that changed during the 1998 offseason, when the Bowl Championship Series was created, and a new era of college football began.
On the morning of May 18, 1998, I answered the phone, suspecting nothing out of the ordinary, and was quite surprised to hear that the voice on the other end was that of Roy Kramer, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference. Kramer said he was devising a new formula to determine which college football teams would play in which bowls, and he wanted to know if Chris Hester (co-creator of the Anderson & Hester Rankings) and I would have a problem if our computer rankings were included. I replied (in what was certainly an understatement), We would welcome being included. Three weeks lateronce Kramer had gotten buy-in from the other conference commissioners, NBC, ABC, and CBSthe creation of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was publicly announced.
The BCS was designed for one central purpose: to provide college football with an annual national championship game. That game would be hosted on a rotating basis by the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls. (Since January 2007, it has been hosted separately from these bowls, although still on their sites, as the National Championship Game.) Kramer, a former successful head football coach at Central Michigan, knew that the championship-game matchup needed to be determined on the basis of something beyond the subjective polls, which ask coaches, sportswriters, and the like to rank the teams as they see fit. Kramer rightly sensed that it should be rooted in some sort of objective evaluation. So he turned to computer rankings.
That first season, the only computer rankings that were included in the BCS formula were ours (the Anderson & Hester Rankings, then called the Seattle Times Rankings), Jeff Sagarins (which were and are published in USA Today), and the now-defunct and truly terrible New York Times rankings. Collectively, the computer rankings accounted for one-fourth of the original BCS formula, with the polls (the average of the AP and coaches) accounting for another fourth. The other two quartiles were based on a not-very-accurate internal BCS strength-of-schedule rating and each teams number of losses. So three-quarters of the original criteria was objective, while only one quarterthe pollswas subjective.
The excitement began early. On the last day of the BCSs first season, No. 2 (in the BCS) UCLA lost at Miami in a hurricane make-up game that had originally been scheduled for months earlier. Then, in perhaps the game of the year, Texas A&M overcame a 15-point, fourth-quarter deficit to defeat No. 3 Kansas State in double-overtime in the Big 12 Championship Game. As a result, Florida State moved up from No. 4 to No. 2 in the final BCS standings, and the Seminoles played No. 1 Tennessee on January 4 in the Fiesta Bowl. The Volunteers won 23-16, to claim the first BCS national championship.
From the start, fans loved the BCS. And one of the things they loved most about it was complaining about it. That first season, a level-headed Kansas State fan wrote and told Chris and me that, by not having the Wildcats ranked in the top-two, our computer rankings were committing an injustice comparable to that of slavery.
To be sure, the BCS generated its share of controversyand the computer rankings, being its most mysterious part, provided an easy scapegoat. To this day, however, few people seem to realize that an important change was made to the BCS formula after its sixth season. The formula, which had previously been a bit too complex and unwieldy, was streamlined, simplified, and significantly improved. From the 2004-05 season onward, this revised formula included only two basic components: the polls (with the Harris poll replacing the AP poll after the 2005 season) and the computer rankings (which by then consisted of ours, Sagarins, Richard Billingsleys, Peter Wolfes, Kenneth Masseys, and Wes Colleys). In another important change from the original formula, the polls were given more weight. Going forward, they accounted for two-thirds of the formula, while the computer rankings accounted for the other third. This reflected a recognition that its the fans game, and the fans opinions (largely reflected in the subjective polls) need to hold swayalthough not unlimited sway.
The improved formula worked like a charm. Controversy about the BCS persisted, but it started to sound more like an echo from the earlier days, with that echo fading further over time. For the past 10 seasons (from 2004‑05 through 2013-14), the BCS national championship matchup has reflected the public consensus each and every yeara remarkable feat for any formula that isnt based strictly on popular opinion.
Under the BCS, college football has flourished. In 1997, the last pre-BCS season, attendance for the sports Football Bowl Subdivision (its major division) was 27.6 million. Last season, it was 37.2 millionan increase of 35 percent. Some of that is because teams now play more games, but the average attendance has also risen, from 42,085 in 1997 to 45,440 last season. Over that same span, average attendance at Division I mens college basketball games has dropped from 5,485 to 5,190.
Whats more, the BCS has opened up college footballs loftiest heights to more teams. While not a single team from a nonpower conference or school was invited to what wed now call a BCS bowl game in the 27 years between 1971 (when Air Force played Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl) and the onset of the BCS, 8 such teams have been invited by the BCS in the past 10 seasons alone (Boise State twice, Utah twice, TCU twice, Hawaii, and Northern Illinois).
The BCS took a sport that had developed organically across decadeswith all of its unique bowls, conferences, and rivalriesand sought to improve it at the margins rather than fundamentally transforming it. The BCSs obvious benefit has been the staging of a genuine national championship game. But its less obvious benefit, which even Kramer has indicated he didnt fully anticipate, is that it has caused fans across the nation to care far more about games in other regions than they did beforethereby greatly enhancing the most compelling regular season in all of sports.
Thus, when Alabama lined up for a potential game-winning 57-yard field goal against Auburn on the games final play, two days after Thanksgiving, it wasnt just the state of Alabama that held its breath. When the Crimson Tides well-struck kick dropped about a yard wide and two yards short of its intended destination, it wasnt just the Deep South that watched with surprise as Auburns Chris Davis caught the ball in the back of the end zone. And when Davis started to run it out, when he broke toward the left sideline and into the open fieldit wasnt just SEC country that erupted along with the frenzied home crowd. When Davis crossed the goal line, completing perhaps the most improbable play in college football since Stanfords marching band ran onto the field more than 30 years ago, it was all of America (minus the Bama fans, of course) that cheered the triumph of an underdog squad (0-8 in the SEC a year ago) that had found a way to beat its archrival, the defending national champions.
Who cheers that way for regular-season college basketballor, for that matter, for regular-season NFL football?
Before the BCS, that game would have been played with a potential Sugar Bowl berth on the line, not a potential National Championship Game berth. And while people outside the South might have watched, they likely wouldnt have been watching closely or caring much. For the most part, fans used to pay attention to what was happening in their own regions. Now the irresistible drama of college footballparticularly of late-season college footballis shared throughout the land, and there is nothing quite like it.
At least there hasnt been. But next year things will change. Next season, the BCS will give way to the College Football Playoff (CFP), which will institute a two-round structure involving the top four teams. Somewhat lost in the hype surrounding a playoff is a profound change in the method of selecting teams, which is perhaps more consequential than the additional playoff round. After all, the BCS had already provided not only a figurative, season-long playoff but also a literal playoff between the top two teams.
There are pros and cons to the additional round. On the one hand, should undefeated Texas and undefeated USC each have been forced to play semifinal games before waging their epic battle for the championship in the 2006 Rose Bowl? Upsets can always happen, and one that year might have denied fans the chance to see the greatest game of the BCS era and perhaps of all timein which Vince Youngs fourth-and-five scramble for an eight-yard touchdown with 19 seconds left gave the Longhorns the victory. (That years Texas team holds the highest season-ending rating in the history of the Anderson & Hester Rankings.) In a similar vein, should this years Auburn team be forced to play a semifinal rematch versus No. 3 (in the BCS) Alabama before getting a shot at No. 1 Florida State? In other words, should Alabama get a mulligan? Thats how it will work beginning next year.
To these drawbacks, it must be added that theres something about a playoff that requires the suspension of ones faculty of reason. Some fans act as if the notion of a playoff were brought down from Mount Sinai, but the playoff structure is a rather artificial construct that amounts to declaring that, at some particular point in time, only the games from here on out will really count. Only by respecting such arbitrary decrees can fans make sense of the notion that, say, a New York Giants team that lost six games was nonetheless the 2007-08 NFL champion, because they scored with 35 seconds left in the seasons final game to give the New England Patriots their only loss.
On the other hand, playoffs clearly have their placeand, indeed, the BCSs one-game playoff has been a wonderful addition to the sport. And it will certainly be fun to watch the extra round of playoff games. Moreover, there are years when the top two teams arent as cut and dried as in others, years that perhaps cry out for a four-team playoff field. Nor should a four-team playoff have too much of an adverse effect on the regular season.
But the effect of the playoff on the bowlsparticularly on the oldest and grandest bowlis another question. It is hard to see how there will be many matchups of Pac-12 and Big Ten champions in future Rose Bowls. More often than not, one or both of those conference champions will make the four-team playoff field, thereby pulling them out of Pasadena. This year, for example, the No. 4 team in the BCS, Michigan State, would have been pulled out of its Rose Bowl matchup against No. 5 Stanford, thereby disrupting the traditional pairing of Big Ten and Pac-12 champions in this, the 100th Rose Bowl. And even when the Rose Bowl hosts a national semifinal game, it could only host the Pac-12 and Big Ten champions if those teams were both in the field of four and were matched up in the same game. In other words, enjoy this years clash of traditional conference champions in the Rose Bowlit may be the last one for many years.
Of course, the notion that No. 2 Auburn would play No. 3 Alabama, while No. 1 Florida State would play No. 4 Michigan State, is based on those teams placements in the BCS standings. But those standings wont exist next year. Thats because the current conference commissionersin the wake of the retirements of Kramer, former Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen, and others who helped form the BCShave decided to uproot Kramers foundational notion that college footballs biggest stage shouldnt be filled by purely subjective means. After 16 years of anchoring its standings in objective criteria, college football will instead use the subjective findings of a 13-member selection committee as the sole determiner of its playoff field.
This is a profound change, and it remains to be seen whether fans will accept it. If the BCS reflected a Madisonian-like effort to refine and enlarge public opinion, the new panel of experts more nearly reflects the Progressives view that Madison got it wrong. Under the BCS, the polls held sway unless the computers held them to be in error by a relatively wide margin. Thus, the computers marked the outer limits of the acceptable range of subjective opinion. There will be no such limits placed on the CFPs supercommittee, whose subjectivity will go unchecked and wont likely be explained to the fans who will be on the receiving end of its unilateral decrees.
Some people called the BCS elitist, but in truth the BCS standings reflected the collective opinion of 167 poll voters, anchored in the objective conclusions of six computers. The selection committee will reflect the collective opinion of just 13 people, anchored in nothing objective whatsoeverexcept for whatever criteria those 13 individuals might subjectively choose to apply.
True, college basketballa sport marked by three weeks of postseason glory, a four-month de facto exhibition season, and (as noted) declining attendancehas a selection committee. But its one thing to decide between giving a team a No. 1 or a No. 2 seed in a tournament field of 68 teams. Its quite another to emerge from a closed-door meeting, anoint the four top teams, and then announce that every other team has been eliminated from consideration.
Moreover, part of the charm of the BCS was that teams and fans knew, every week from late October onward, where they stood. Each team not only knew what spot it held in the BCS standings but also how farnumericallyit was behind, or ahead of, other teams. That prepped teams and fans alike for what might come next. The expert panel wont be as much fun.
There has been talk that the panel might buttress its secret deliberations by using a computer ranking system like the RPI (Rating Percentage Index), which has long been the objective ranking of choice for the basketball selection committee. But the RPI is a laughably bad ranking, a conclusion perhaps obscured by the fact that basketball rankings dont much matter.
Jeff Sagarin has run the RPI for college football and shared it with me. One week before this seasons climax, the RPI would have called for a championship game between two-loss South Carolina and two-loss Arizona State (teams No. 8 and No. 11 at the time in the BCS). Now, with the regular season in the books, the RPI ranks three-loss Arizona State (losers to Stanford on the seasons final Saturday) ahead of one-loss Alabama. It ranks North Dakota State two spots ahead of Rose Bowl-bound Michigan State. During the 2010-11 season, which culminated in Auburn beating Oregon 22-19 in the title gamea matchup that both polls and all six BCS computer rankings unanimously called forthe RPI instead called for Oklahoma (No. 7 in the BCS standings) to play Auburn and ranked undefeated Oregon 15th, behind a South Carolina team that had lost four games. Even if the selection committee doesnt use the RPIs rankings, it might well decide to use the RPIs almost equally bad strength-of-schedule ratings (on which those rankings are based), as the CFP website states that the committee will consider strength of schedule.
Even the CFPs mission statement, which declares, The committees task will be to select the best teams, is problematic. The best team isnt the same thing as the most deserving team, and the distinction is crucial. All six BCS computer rankings (which are designed to show the most deserving teams) rank Auburn above Alabama. Similarly, both polls rank Auburn over Alabama. But the entity thats best-equipped to know the best teamLas Vegaswould almost surely make Alabama a significant favorite over Auburn in a rematch. So, would the supercommittee really seed Alabama ahead of Auburn? Or would it instead imply that Vegas oddsmakers dont know who the best team is? Or would it simply refuse to follow its own mandate to seed teams based on which ones are best?
Odds are, we college football fans will never know. Well just be presented with a list. We will have to take solace in these words from the CFP website: Each committee member independently will evaluate an immense amount of information during the process.
It's hard to believe that college football fans, who are instinctively more Madisonian than Progressive and arent known for embracing panels of experts in this or most other realms, will tolerate this for long. It therefore seems almost inevitable that college football will eventually go in one of two directions: back to the BCS standings, which could be renamed the College Football Playoff standings, as the tried-and-true means of selecting teams; or on to an eight-team playoff, whichby giving five of the eight slots to major conference championswould marginalize the importance of the committee while also marginalizing the importance of college footballs enviable regular season.
If there were an eight-team playoff field, a classic regular-season game like Auburn-Alabama would largely have been sapped of its drama, at least for those living outside of the state in which it was played. Instead of deciding Alabamas fate in the national championship race, it would merely have lowered its seeding. The same could probably be said of Ohio States fate in the aftermath of its game against Michigan State. Meanwhile, matchups between Big Ten and Pac-12 champions in the Rose Bowl would be even rarer under an eight-team playoff than under a four-team oneperhaps far rarer. In short, an eight-team playoff would undermine much of what is good about college football.
The other optionusing the BCS formula to determine the four-team playoff fieldwould offer a proven track-record of success. Across the past 10 seasons (again, since the BCS formula was simplified and improved), that formulagenerally reflecting public opinion but being anchored in objective measureswould have produced uniformly solid fields of teams.
All things considered, the most sensible way to apply the BCS formula in selecting teams for the playoff would probably be to take the top three teams in the BCS standings and reserve the fourth spot for a conference champion (or for an independent thats ranked No. 4). That way, a nonconference champion would be guaranteed a bid by making the top-three, while winning a conference championship would be given some extra weight. Using that criteria, this years lineup would be No. 1 (in the BCS) Florida State, No. 2 Auburn, No. 3 Alabama, and No. 4 Michigan State. Last years would have been No. 1 Notre Dame, No. 2 Alabama, No. 3 Florida, and No. 5 Kansas State (since No. 4 Oregon wasnt a conference champion). In 2011-12, it would have been No. 1 LSU, No. 2 Alabama, No. 3 Oklahoma State, and No. 5 Oregon (since No. 4 Stanford wasnt a conference champion). Or, alternatively, one could just take the top four teams, regardless of conference championships. Either way, it would be hard to argue with these results.
In short, the problem with college football going away from the BCS isnt its expansion from a two-team to a four-team playoff. The problem is its choosing to fill that field via subjective means, in a nontransparent way, through the decrees of a bakers dozens worth of insulated elites. College football fans arent likely to accept having their teams fate decided by the caprice of a committee. If that in turn leads to the further expansion of the playoff field to eight teams (to help relieve the pressure on the committee), it would do serious and lasting damage to college footballs bowl games and its unparalleled regular season. It would also undermine the nationwide interest in regional games, which has been the greatest unanticipated benefit of the BCS system.
For those of us who have been fortunate enough to be involved in the BCS from the beginning, it has been a great 16-year run. Not many people have been given the opportunity to have a say in the national championship matchup of their favorite sportlet alone 16 times. It has certainly been an honor and a blessing, and Ill forever be grateful to commissioners Kramer, Hansen, and others.
People sometimes ask whether Chris and I will continue doing our rankings next season. I suppose its a fair question, but it always sounds a bit strange to my ears. We were doing rankings before the BCS beganwith no realistic expectation that they would ever be used in this wayand well keep doing them after it ends. After all, somebodys got to show the supercommittee where its gone wrong.
On the day of the final BCS standings release, Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher said, We all complained about the BCS and everything that goes on, but its funny how many times they get it right. Indeed, the BCS got it right 10 times in a row. From 2004-05 through 2013-14, it offered fans the matchup they wanted to see every year, without relying on pure subjectivity, on closed-door meetings, or on a panel of expertslet alone relying on all three at once. Instead, the BCS combined subjectivity and objectivity, art and science, and reflected public consensus while also helping to inform it. It did its job, and it did it extremely well.
On ESPNs College Football Final on the night of the conference championship games, Hall-of-Famer Mark May argued during the shows always enjoyable Final Verdict segment that college football should keep the BCS. May said, I believe that the BCS system did their job at getting No. 1 and No. 2 matched together. And I believe, if you like the BCS system, you should keep the BCS system. May then lamented that the new system will open the door to an 8-team playoff, then a 16-team playoff, and so on. The rampart against such an unfortunate occurrencewhich would ruin the dramatic regular season and colorful bowl gamesis to continue using the BCS selection process to select the four-team field. A system that worked in picking two teams, to the exclusion of all others, can certainly handle the far easier challenge of picking four.
But whatever the future may hold, the truth is that the BCS took the best sport in America and made it indisputably better. In fact, it seemed to make it better almost every year. As a result, anyone who loves the game and has followed it closely over the past decade is likely to share in this appraisal: The BCS era has been the golden age of college football.
Jeffrey H. Anderson is the co-creator, along with Chris Hester, of the Anderson & Hester Rankings.
Why was my comment removed? Did it strike to close to home? What happened to debating the issue? There millions of college football fan like me who think the BCS is a crock. Please explain to me how my comment didn’t fit the rule of FreeRepublic.
You probably didn’t say anything that most of us are already thinking.
“College Football”, its ALL about the $$$s!
Nothing but crickets chirping from the idiot moderator. There was nothing in my comment that was offensive. All I did was point out the fact that there has never been a true National Champion in FBS Football. I stated my case for 16 team playoff that would consist of all 10 conference champs and 6 at large teams. I pointed out that this is the only way we will ever have a true National Champion in the FBS division.
College football died when the BCS was created. There is nothing more “exciting” than to see two teams, selected by computers and writers instead of earning it on the field, face each other with the winner anointed as champion of the free world. By this single act of stupidity, the remaining bowls become nothing more than meaningless exhibitions. Thank you NCAA and ESPN/ABC!
Give me a true playoff, or go back to old bowl system with an end of season poll. At least there is some drama with the polls, and something to play for. This present madness is for the birds. I can’t imagine any true sports fan thinking the BCS, or any future variation is a good thing. But hey, I now have lots of free time during the bowl season!
I agree with you. The BCS should be the B.S. Championship and I don’t see why that post would have been pulled. Someone’s got an itchy trigger finger.
The ncaa doesn’t technically award a National Championship in Football. The only sport that has such a distinction.
Article of interest,says nice things about Auburn’s placement in the BCS standings :-)
The funny thing is the money would pour in with a 16 team playoff. FBS football would be Scrooge McDuck swimming in his gold coin silos.
Just consider this. College basketball determines their champion through a playoff.
So now, who gives a crap about college basketball during the regular season?
Calling them idiots is not your best play in trying to get a comment restored. Did you follow the rules when posting?
I have protested some post being deleted. Win some lose some. But, keeping it civil cannot ever hurt.
I started caring less about the bowl games when the BCS started. As far as I’m concerned, it wrecked college football.
I may be in the minority, but I would like to eschew any sort of playoff system or national championship game. A playoff system and/or a championship game diminishes the stature and significance of the bowls, lengthens the season, and makes college football too much like pro football.
Let’s get back to the bowl system, with the national champion being subjectively picked by sports writers, coaches, computer models, etc.
Why is there no explanation for my post being pulled? I didn’t break any of the posting rules. Why doesn’t the moderator just man up and tell what the issue was with my post?
Apples and oranges though dfw. Many more fans of football and many LESS home dates to see your school’s team.
I think there are serious issues w/ seat licensing (cost of tickets) at many schools, but the passion is there. It’s certainly enough passion to successfully propel a playoff format.
That is all you said?! Damn, you have been here a long time, you at least deserve a response why your post was yanked. Maybe the reason will be forthcoming?
But one of the great things about the Auburn-Alabama game was that it did eliminate Alabama.
Had that game occurred next year, it wouldn’t have mattered as much, since most likely Bama would have still made the playoffs.
Bowl Games are the College Football version of the NIT.
That’s an unfortunate side effect, but more than ever, this needs to be settled on the field. I’m tired of the media (espn) telling us how it is. The ncaa should be steering this ship, but they acquiesce to the espn $$$.
Ping to the AU list!
Mods generally do not give reasons. As I said, they sometimes respond to a courteous request. It helps to ping or PM them, though. As a service, I will ping a mod for you.
What most people seem to overlook is that football -- both college and professional -- is really incompatible with a playoff system no matter how hard these organizations try to pretend otherwise. The biggest problem with football is that the schedule is too short -- which means that the strength of a team's schedule will heavily influence its final record. This is why the SEC does so well in these BCS championship games. Even an SEC team with two losses can probably beat most other conference champions in any given year.
When would these playoffs take place? Making room for a series of playoffs would mean that Division 1A football would have to end its regular season in mid-November, thereby reducing the number of games, or start in mid-August. Otherwise, the season would have to be extended well into January.
Read your link — good stuff, thanks for posting that look back to the before-Genesis time for the BCS.
The bowl games have way too much power...and big name sponsors...even for smaller games. The book Death to the BCS really outlines how corrupt the bowls are
The sad thing, schools are actually losing money sending their teams to bowls.
Win your conference and you get a spot, don’t win your conference and pray for an at large bid. Bottom line, win and your in.
That is why car washes and bake sales were invented
That game was certainly significant - for a number of reasons. Also the 1994 PSU team cemented the need for another system - arguably still the best offense to ever take the field, and yet they had to go to the Rose Bowl, while UNL went on to play an average Cane team in Miami.
Too bad the system they came up with has evolved into espn having all the control.
And therein lies the problem. In any given year the third-best (or even fourth-best) SEC team is better than most of the other conference champions. How does a “win and you’re in” playoff system do any justice in that case?
We must live in alternate universes. I LOATHE the BCS system & cannot wait for the 4 team playoff. Eight will be better.
One answer would be to automatically schedule two games during the season against quality non-conference opponents. Teams would be randomly selected.
Each team plays one of the two games at home and the other away, one game occurs early in the season, the other near the end of the season.
Teams are drawn against teams that finished at a similar level the previous season.
I think this could go a long way to removing the Conference Bias.
The only way they would be left out in the cold was if the Rose Bowl -- where both of the teams had automatic bids -- was played between two of the top-ranked teams in the country.
That all ended when Penn State joined the Big Ten -- which they did for purely financial reasons. So they end up as one of the top-ranked teams but were forced to play an Oregon team with three losses in the Rose Bowl. Too bad, eh?
Your argument doesn’t hold water. In the 16 team format the 6 at large bids go to the 6 highest ranking teams that that didn’t win their conference. in that format the SEC will get their teams in.
I didn’t write the article. I posted it to let FReepers engage in a spirited discussion on the issue.
Don’t look at me, Sean. No veto power resides in this FReeper. I just put the article on FR to let FReepers have a good go debating the author’s contentions.
Quite clearly. I regret my ambiguity.
I profoundly disagree with the original author’s goofy take. In my opinion, he could not be more wrong.
Well, if it wasn’t for the popularity of Big East Basketball at the time, we would have had an Eastern All Sports Conference with PSU, Pitt, WVU, BC, Syracuse, Temple, Rutgers, Maryland (maybe), etc.
Sure PSU took the money, but it wasn’t sports money. It was CIC money and the incredible increase in research grants that have resulted.
You think it’s wrecked now? Wait ‘til you see what the “panel of experts” will do to it when they descend from Mount Olympus to give us peons the list of playoff teams.
I think he’s right about one observation. See post 42.
That goes without saying, but at least they are going to give us 4 teams instead of 2.
Only College football on the highest level rejects a true playoff system and subjects fans to meaningless 'bowl' games and tells us that we should like them!
How is it that the lower level college teams can do it but not the higher one?
So, stop playing meaningless games against lower level teams and play REAL games.
It seems that would be the simple way to do it, but instead they insist on subjecting us to this boring, meaningless Bowl system
So far, so good. How many teams (and which teams, decided by what standard) would make the playoffs?