Division I College Football Should Implement a Play-off System

"Ok, so…a computer is expected to know which team is better." Yes. As to your example, I don't know exactly how the computer does it, but it would probably be done by first removing home-field advantage scores from each game ever played, and then using the scores to find out how each team plays against each other team, and finally assigning power rankings to each team that shows how well it seems that each team did. In your example, I'd guess that the computer would decide which team did the best against the teams it played, and which team played the toughest opponents, and combine the two criteria in some way, so that the teams that effectively did the best are chosen. So, individual scores would be needed to determine the winner. "Also, What constitutes the best?..." No. I think the best team would be the team that plays the best football. That's why I'm for the removing of the polls. "Also, you have yet to respond to the undeniable logic..." In 1781, the United States was just about the first country to attempt a highly democratic, equal society, without a large government. http://en.wikipedia.org... Other countries laughed at the United States for trying a new idea. It didn't work, so they improved it, and it worked, and now the U.S. is a world superpower. Other countries around the world follow its ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org... So, something that is the norm isn't always the best. Using computers in sports is new. D-I is the first group to apply it directly. They are laughed at for it, but it may be the norm in a few decades. "Why even play a championship game if this computer is so smart…?" Because one final game between the top two is cool, and one final game by itself proportionately provides huge revenue. "The truth in any one team can beat any other team on any given night." Therefore, if we want to know what team is truly the best, we need to look and a multitude of nights. This tells us who the best is more accurately than a playoff system. If the best two teams play each other in the final round, you know you're going to get a good game. However, why do we want to see #1 crush #7? That becomes boring. "If one team ALWAYS win..." The game isn't rigged. The best team wins. The other team should try to get better. "Seriously, if you are going to right of luck..." How does one right of luck? The above sentences don't make sense. Plus, once you eliminate some of the most luck-driven factors, then you end up with better football. About the bowl games, I don't think that they should be turned into consolation matches. This would make it seem better than to never make the playoffs than to be #16, or #15, or #8, even. Consolations reward failure. We don't want to reward failure. I never attacked your voters. You don't have any voters yet. If I play my cards right, you never will. "1)I <3 how a team that wins a play-off is so lucky ‘cause they killed their compation..." I'm not talking about injuries in-game. I'm talking tripping over the sidewalk, or falling down the stairs, or cramping in the hand upon picking up a phone. And why would a team kill its own compassion? "2)So some how, D-II, D-III, and Sub-Division schools (Including Ivy League school like Yale, and Havard) but not D-I????..." See the America argument. The norm isn't always the best. BCS is new. It will take a while to be adopted in more places. Can an argument ever hold "wait"? "3)A) Simply economics..." However, this also requires setting up more games. College football is actually unprofitable. From "Economic Facts and Fallacies": "On the contrary, [football and basketball] and other sports cost more money than they bring in..." One game brings proportionately more than two games, due to supply and demand. "B)If having the games over the New Years Holiday is that important then schedule the games then..." However, there isn't enough time for a full play-off in the New Year's holiday. A BCS final can fit, though. "C) I <3 how you used Wiki as a source again, very credible" I know. It's great. My opponent concedes that Wikipedia is a credible source. "4) I still can't see how you computer is going to help these small teams..." I think that season matches should be reformed. But I'm still Pro-BCS. "5) Still the currently taking a month off is stupid" Well, time can never be in your favor, as a play-off always takes longer than the BCS. "1)This sounds familiar (Check Wiki)..." However, this can only work for BCS, not for a play-off. "2)The BCS is more accurate..." It computes. Upon the removal of polls, it isn't biased towards the big schools. Without polls, the computer is completely unbiased. It determines which teams had the best performance throughout the season. "3)Ok, so even a Play-off would have to compete with the NFL..." Well, that's to a play-off's disadvantage. I don't know how the other guys do it. You tell me. "What I want to know is what makes this Computer so smart?" If given access to every single score throughout the entire season, it can compute the performance comparatively of each team, and it can then pick the best two teams. "How can you avoid the variable of Luck (which you say is bad) in any game played ever?" In the play-offs, having bad luck just once throws you out of the running. The BCS uses the luck that is spread out through the entire season. When flipping more coins, you get closer to a 50-50 ratio. Therefore, an entire season of computing helps to reduce luck. "And, (I really want to know this one) Why does College Football D-I get out of having a play-off when EVERY (As I've stressed in my earlier posts) other Division, Level, and Sport has play-offs?" How did America get out of having a monarchy? "Again, I have three undefeated teams: Team A, Team B, and Team C. Which two teams get to play in your BCS title game, and which one sits at how?" For one thing, I'm amazed that these three teams never played each other. Now, if Team A beat Team D 47-12, and Team B beat Team D 54-48 and Team C beat Team D 37-36, then the finals would probably be A vs. B. The computer needs more information than what you give. "And to anyone out their still undecided on this topic..." So, you say that the people who run D-I have the opportunity to have the "Ultiment Event in Sports"? Then why haven't they done this yet? They must obviously have a reason. Perhaps they can't. They might be locked into a contract. They might not have enough time. They might be unable to afford it. I don't know. But they do. They might be unable to do a lot of things. Perhaps they don't want to. They might like the current system better. They might have more profits under the BCS. They might appreciate the fan excitement. They might want their students to study for finals rather than watch football. I don't know. But they do. They might want a lot of things. However, there must be a reason why they have the current system they have, as opposed to a new one. If play-offs were so beneficial and viable, as you claim, then they would have implemented it already. But they haven't. They either can't do it, or they don't want to do it, or something else. Obviously, they know more about this stuff than you do. But they shouldn't do something that they can't do. But they shouldn't do something that they don't want to do. Therefore, Division I College Football should not implement a play-off system. There. Resolution negated. Through logic. "But who knows, maybe my oppent will get really LUCKY and win this debeat....oh the Irony in that." That wasn't luck. I don't need luck against you. I used skill and creativity. Plus, I don't do "debeats." I do "debates."