CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

That would be the mad hatter's argument, so why not? LSU would have a better argument. They won at Alabama's house and Bama won at a neutral site.

The winner wins the BCS National Championship. All the other polls are sort of meaningless.

If people really wanted to know who was the best, they should play a Best-of-10 series; that should settle it.

This is why Alabama getting the crystal ball seems so absurd to me. LSU beat them on the road (regardless of whether or not it was tied at regulation, they won while playing extra football). Alabama beating LSU on a neutral field means they went 1-1 against each other. Even if Bama beat them by 20....Which was the fluke? How can we say Alabama is better with any certainty when they went 1-1 against each other? The bottom line is you can't really tell which outcome was the fluky outcome and the most you can say is that it was a draw. If Bama wins by 20, the Bama fans will say, "see, I knew we were better all along." LSU fans will say, "yeah, but we beat you on the road and you beat us on a 40 day layoff." If LSU beats Bama by 20, the Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech fans will say, "but what about us? We never were given a chance to play LSU." Whoopty-doo, welcome to our post-national-title scenarios. Congrats pollsters.

Eric wrote:If people really wanted to know who was the best, they should play a Best-of-10 series; that should settle it.

This is why Alabama getting the crystal ball seems so absurd to me. LSU beat them on the road (regardless of whether or not it was tied at regulation, they won while playing extra football). Alabama beating LSU on a neutral field means they went 1-1 against each other. Even if Bama beat them by 20....Which was the fluke? How can we say Alabama is better with any certainty when they went 1-1 against each other? The bottom line is you can't really tell which outcome was the fluky outcome and the most you can say is that it was a draw. If Bama wins by 20, the Bama fans will say, "see, I knew we were better all along." LSU fans will say, "yeah, but we beat you on the road and you beat us on a 40 day layoff." If LSU beats Bama by 20, the Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech fans will say, "but what about us? We never were given a chance to play LSU." Whoopty-doo, welcome to our post-national-title scenarios. Congrats pollsters.

Yes, a 64 team playoff, best of five series (ten would take to long ) We would be sure who the best team was, we maybe, some would run out of eligibility before it was over so the veteran teams would be at a disadvantage. But what the heck, they should do it.

Phil Knight would be in heaven.

Yes, but that wouldn't take away from the game itself. I would watch the game, it would be a good game.

I will absolutely refuse to watch it because I have no interest. But I realize I'm just being a stickler

I like good defensive games so that one would be high on my list.

Question......If we went to a Playoff system....what would ESPN complain about??????

Derek wrote:Question......If we went to a Playoff system....what would ESPN complain about??????

If FOX got the rights to the playoff games,then espn would complain about which teams got chosen.

.

.

.

Spence wrote:That would be the mad hatter's argument, so why not? LSU would have a better argument. They won at Alabama's house and Bama won at a neutral site.

RazorHawk wrote:The winner wins the BCS National Championship. All the other polls are sort of meaningless.

Which is why I would be fine with a split Championship, should things go this way.

Spence is right, that LSU would have beaten `Bama in game one on their own turf. However, RazorHawk is also correct; because the BCS title is attached to the winner of the game played on that date, therefore the BCS title would not be able to either split, nor go to the losing team of that game.

LSU would deserve half of the title, though, hence, the associated press could show their validity by doing the right thing, for once . . . even though we all know that is against their religion.

.

.

.