Big playoffs aren't the answer

Unfortunately, College Football Cafeteria hasn't been able to comprehend that the BCS system of a 2 team playoff is better for college football. He's now claiming that Oregon is not a top-5 team, that it would be better if non-conference games didn't matter, and favors a playoff system similar to “everybody gets a trophy day” by rewarding teams with playoffs spots without having them earn it. I'm watching the VCU vs Butler NCAA basketball semifinal game, and while I like a good story and Cinderella as much as the next as the next guy, these 2 teams are not among the nation's best 4, or best 2, yet one of them will be playing in the finals and may win the championship, which would give them the championship for this NCAA basketball season. Why is it better to reward teams who get hot for 3 weeks as opposed to teams who play well all season long? This doesn't make any sense.

The BCS does a poor job of selecting the two best teams. All they can do is select the two teams who had the best regular seasons.

Yes, that is exactly what they do. This is what all playoff systems should be doing, and you seem to understand that they do this, which is encouraging. With this format, of basing the postseason on the regular season and not just including everyone that had an above average season, the regular season is meaningful to those who perform well and deserve accolades. Glad that you're starting to see the light.

I would emphatically say that last season Oregon would not have been a top 5 team if there was a 119 game schedule.

Well, say it as emphatically as you want, you don't know that for certain and you never will, and the only way we have to judge teams is on a 12-13 game schedule, so deal with it. Everyone knows how many games they have going into the season (and some realize the possibility of a conference championship game), and Oregon did all they could. You can make that claim about any sport. If the NCAA basketball season was 100 games long, maybe different teams would end up on top. It doesn't matter what would happen if the season was extended, it only matters what happened on the field.

Every other year they throw on the field performance out the door and vote on it! TCU’s regular season performance has meant nothing for two straight years now. Why even bother having a regular season?

Do you not realize that they base their votes on teams' performance? I would think that is a pretty fundamental understanding. They don't vote based on how good they think teams are, they base it on the results of the game (however, you seem to want to put Alabama in your top 5, and knock Oregon out, so I'm glad you don't have a vote). If more than 2 teams go undefeated, someone is going to get left out. In 2009, BCS and non-BCS conference teams were left out. It happens, just like it does every year in college basketball.

I don't think TCU's, or Boise State's for that matter, seasons have meant nothing. Talk to students, alumni and supporters of those schools and I think you will get an answer from them that is different than your assumption. I live a few hours outside of Fort Worth so I hear a lot about TCU, and it certainly sounds pretty meaningful to them. Their recent success has also allowed them to move into a more competitive conference, and I would say that is pretty meaningful. While TCU's performance may not mean anything to you, it is safe to say that it has been very meaningful to TCU.

Why would (irrelevant non-conference games) be a shame? How on earth can this be viewed negatively? Think of how many more games like those you have mentioned would be played if the non-conference games weren’t a must win? You prefer to see Alabama pound Chattanooga year in and year out? The BCS has dawned the cupcake non-conference schedule.

Ugh. It can be viewed negatively very easily, because if you talk to fans, they enjoy that games are must-win (it makes them more exciting that way) and enjoy that non-conference games matter. Those games I mentioned are exciting because are important for those teams. And the cupcake non-conference did not start along with the BCS. I go into more detail about this specific argument in my previous post dissecting Chapter 9 of Death to the BCS, so check that out if you like. But big time teams regularly played cupcake teams before the BCS. Also consider NCAA basketball, where the regular season is very insignificant due to their 68-team playoff, and teams like Duke schedule teams like Colgate, Bradley, St Louis, and Elon. Claiming the BCS dawned the cupcake non-conference schedule is simply an uneducated opinion, not based on any facts.

I want a system that is independent of coaches votes, the opinions of random sports personalities in the media and the arbitrary formulas of computers. I want a system that requires teams to prove their merit. I want a system where tough decisions about who gets in and who gets out are made by an informed committee, just like with basketball.

It doesn't appear that you have done any research into this NCAA basketball selection committee which you seem to support. First of all, it is made up of 8 Athletic Directors and 2 conference commissioners, which are people that have jobs that keep them very busy, and I highly doubt they have seen all of the teams play. To say that each committee member is well-informed on every team they are considering is laughable. Also, let's not forget that this committee relies on the RPI rating (relies too heavily on this in Andy Staples' opinion), which is a computer ranking. Since the selection processes are very similar, except in the number of teams each selects of course, how do you prefer one over the other? Make sure you realize the selection method you are recommending before you ridicule a system that uses basically the same method.

While I recognize the BCS is unpopular, it does seem that more people are starting to realize that it gives a better representation of the nation's elite teams than a playoff, especially because of the teams in this year's Final Four. Check articles here, here and here. It certainly isn't an exhaustive list of articles, but it is more than we have seen in the past. The BCS is very different than all other playoff systems, so it makes sense that it will take some time before people begin to understand that it is superior to most other playoff systems. The main reason is pretty simple too: the BCS only invites 2 teams. All other playoff systems are simply too bloated, inviting teams that can't even win their own divisions. We are a country that demands excellence, and that is all the BCS is doing.