Who do you like for the National Championship Game?

[Jason G]

I personally want one of the favorites to be there again!

Being born and raised here in Columbus as a Buckeye fan I understand that sentiment completely. After my alma mater I consider the scarlet and gray my second favorite team and personally speaking I certainly wouldn't mind seeing OSU end up there again.

Still, I think it would be in the best interest of college football overall if more than just the same 10, 15, or 20 programs were in the running for the title every year.

[Spence]

I'm not saying parity is a bad thing. Just that the homer in me would rather we win every year.

[Yeofoot]

What do you do if you score a touchdown in a National Championship Game?

Call the Police to file a Police report, then get arrested, I want to be like Ramonce and Maurice.

[Spence]

It looks like both guys are equally stupid. Clarett has absolutlely exhausted every second chance avenue. Hopefully Taylor won't do the same.

[colorado_loves_football]

I think that relative schedule strength isn't as hard to predict as WTF losses...a loss to a team that should be beaten.

I noticed in the ACC last year, that a few breaks or coming out flat could be a WTF loss....Clemson is playing good ball and then along comes Wake, BC has the division wrapped up and along comes North Carolina, VT is favored by double digits to go Orange Bowling and along comes FSU.

In the BE, Louisville was cruising until USF wiped them out....that's the fun of college ball.

Actually I'm pretty sure that was the Big East opening game for both teams, as former C-USA members, but you are correct, that was definitely a 'shocker' for the Cardinals, although they did 'rebound' pretty well, overall, came within an OT of winning the Big East, outright. They might have been the best team in the confernece, despite that loss to the Mountaineers, but I give W. Va. credit for winning it, anyway.
S. Florida while competitiive, was likely 'out of their league' competitively, as was Cincinnati. Those C-USA additions, while necessary didn't necessarily serve to make the Big East competitive against say, the ACC.
But I think you are maybe giving too much credit to Miami, Virginia Tech, and BC. Those teams, didn't necessarily put the ACC on top, either. What they did was raise the overall quality of play, within the conference, but did little in terms of making it better, overall.
Someone might point to the W. Virginia vs. Virginia Tech game, as evidence the ACC is necessarily 'better' than the Big East.
But, had Louisville beaten Virginia Tech, in the Gator Bowl, there would be 'sufficient' evidence the Big East was better.
Louisville didn't play their best football, is my point.
Anyting can happen, I suppose, on a given day, but I also believe 9/10 times the best team wins. One reason I favor a competitive arrangment of teams.

[Eric]

Can you explain what you mean to be a "competitive arrangement"? Because I always thought any form of football is competitive and an arrangement.

[Spence]

Can you explain what you mean to be a "competitive arrangement"? Because I always thought any form of football is competitive and an arrangement.

[colorado_loves_football]

Can you explain what you mean to be a "competitive arrangement"? Because I always thought any form of football is competitive and an arrangement.

Of course it is, by definition, it would necessarily have to be.
Consider for a moment, how, traditionally, a collegiate national champion is crowned, within I-A. By a poll. Even the BCS, relies on a 'poll' (several, actually) to pair teams together, competitively.
Now, just humor me for a moment.
Since, we are talking about having the ten 'best' teams represented in the BCS, wouldn't it make sense to allow them 'equal' opportunity to win a national championship?
Actually, it doesn't matter how many teams are represented, even if it's 64, I think they 'deserve' the opportunity, provided they can jump through all the hoops.
So, again this a debate on semantics. You are 'happy' I'm assuming with the present configuration, that gives only two teams (generally) opportunity to win a national title.
I would 'expand' it so that any team, admitted to the BCS has a reasonable opportunity to win, provided they are in position to do it.
This argument isn't just about TCU.
Any year there's been a viable team 'outside' the BCS, which is practically every year, it's been a prejudicial arrangment.
I would give every team, 'fair' opportunity, within reason.
Not every team is going to meet the standard, obviously.
I simply would give the teams that do, the opportunity to win a NC.
The only way that can be done, is through a 'competitive' arrangment, that 'rewards' the winners with an additional game.
Sure, it's a 'playoff' but it relies on traditional bowl pairings to select the 'field', post-BCS.
I've already outlined one way it can be done. It's not so unorthodox.
If anything, it's just an 'expansion' over what's already in place.
'Fair' opportunity means giving any team, 'fair' opportunity.

[Eric]

Or they can jump through the hoops of the regular season and make it "fair" to be in the BCS championship game. It's not a 100% fair system, but it goes by what seems to be the 2 best teams in the country. It's the best college football can do.

I can make an argument that says that a playoff bracket isn't fair. There are teams that get easier roads for being lower seeded and teams that get harder roads for being higher seeded. A lot of teams get lucky making it an easier road for a much better team that doesn't have to jump through a certain hurdle. No system is perfect unless you have them play in a 100 game series. There's no way you can know who is the better team from one game of play.

[Spence]

I would give every team, 'fair' opportunity, within reason.

Here is the problem with the argument. What you consider within reason, I may not. That is the problem with b-ball. The tournament has grown to the point it has(in number of teams) because someone who is close didn't make it. They are now considering raising the number of teams to over 80. It didn't start out this way. I believe they started with 32. Why even play the regular season? It means nothing, except practice for the tourney. At least in football you must take the regular season and play very well to put yourself into position to make the top two. It is hard to win a football championship. It should be hard to win a any championship.

[ktffan]

I would give every team, 'fair' opportunity, within reason.

Here is the problem with the argument. What you consider within reason, I may not. That is the problem with b-ball. The tournament has grown to the point it has(in number of teams) because someone who is close didn't make it. They are now considering raising the number of teams to over 80. It didn't start out this way. I believe they started with 32. Why even play the regular season? It means nothing, except practice for the tourney. At least in football you must take the regular season and play very well to put yourself into position to make the top two. It is hard to win a football championship. It should be hard to win a any championship.

I think they started with 8. If I rememer correctly, it was 32 in the 70s and the bumped it up to 48 before going to 64.

[colorado_loves_football]

The first point being made, is that 64 teams is likely not 'sufficient' for the NCAA, but that's not really what we are debating. I personally think the NCAA bracket likely doesn't select a 'true' national champion, not because of participation, but rather, because of the nature of the sport.
I think 'best-of-3' would be a better arrangment, myself. 'Winner-take-all' makes for interesting drama, but likely doesn't allow for a 'true' national champion, with respect to basketball.

If we are arguing about how the NCAA selects teams, I guess I don't want to open that can of worms. George Mason I believe was a #12 seed that likely was a lot better than their ranking. The tournament showed they 'earned' the right to be represented. Same argument applies to Wichita St. They even played each other (sweet-16).
I tried to apply a BCS argument based on those two teams. My proposal, if adopted would allow for a similar pairing, outside the BCS, in the Liberty Bowl, and would allow the winner, an opportunity to vie for a national title.

We've been all around how the BCS selects its' teams. I'ts obviously not exactly a 'fair' arrangment, but it does allow for competitive play, but not within a playoff bracket. Personally I think that's a pretty stupid way to try to select a 'true' national champion, especially when there's a fairly simple, and effective, alternative, that likely would work, every year.

Yes, it's a 'playoff' but one that allows for traditional pairings, within bowls. People forget that 'traditionally' the Fiesta Bowl was the WAC's bowl. Arizona St. was a WAC team before they were in the Pac-10 (as was Arizona). That's not just some weird coincidence, I'm 'fabricating' for my own end. It's a fact. The WAC's bowl later became the Holiday Bowl, but in a similar fashion, it was taken from them to suit their own end. Even the Cotton Bowl had a 'tie-in' with the WAC prior to the WAC becoming two conferneces (MWC & WAC).

Now, the Liberty Bowl, is a 'host' bowl for both conferences. If the Liberty Bowl were included as a BCS bowl, that would be a 'fair' way to allow a WAC/MWC representative, together with the C-USA champion.
The Holiday Bowl could serve as the 'sixth' bowl, giving the BCS a way to select a 'concensus' national champion, while preserving tradition.

I'ts not rocket science, it's relatively simple, and it would only require two additional games, (semi-finals) sandwiched between the BCS and the 'new' title game. Two games is all that separates the BCS from being a 'fair' arrangment, and being what it is, a conglomeration of games, which happen to include viable teams for a championship. There's no way it will ever produce a 'concensus', it can't. And it won't.

[Eric]

You still don't know who the true champion is in the NCAA basketball tourney because upsets happen. Is Bradley really better than Kansas? No. Maybe that made the road easier for Memphis. Memphis might not be deserving because a team like Arkansas or Kansas might've matched up better against the Tigers. You just never know unless you play a 100 game series who the real better team is.

[ktffan]

You still don't know who the true champion is in the NCAA basketball tourney because upsets happen.

You know the true champion, you don't know the best team.

[Eric]

I suppose. But even so, being crowned the champion should mean that you are the best team of the field.