Division I College Football Should Implement a Play-off System

"Well…except what are you going to do when more that two teams are qualified? .. ." I'm not the computer. The computer is the computer. I can't tell you how it works. I can tell you that there exist methods that take into account everything about a team, including win record, points in each game, opponent, home field advantage, etc. Basically, it WILL determine the top two teams, and the teams that practice weak scheduling are doomed to fail. "Also your system would have pitted Boise State vs. Utah. .. " Well, if the computer computed that Boise State was the second-best team, even with a loss in a non-BCS bowl game, then Boise State was the second-best team, and deserves to play Utah. "Think of any play-off ever played. .. " Sure. But play-offs still aren't as accurate as a computer due to the luck factor in determining the champion. "Let's look at the Neg's only independent argument first: It's stupid. .. ." Ouch? "There is a chance for variety and thus more likely that a wild card team could rise up and take the title, and is that such a bad thing? .. ." If you want to hand over the title to the absolute best, then yes. "You would get the two best teams, every year. Small market, big market, unheard of maybe, but you would get the 2 best teams. " Wrong. You would get the two luckiest teams every year. Using a computer allows the luck of an entire season to sift through, which is more balanced than the luck of three weeks. "Apparently, one week to prepare for a game isn't enough time or even two. .. ." They can still play a game every week. It's just that there aren't enough weeks for a full playoff. They could easily move BCS to the week between the end of the season and the beginning of the other bowl games. A playoff just doesn't fit, because it takes multiple weeks to finish. "The purpose of a play-off is to establish who the best team, after completing the task of the regular season, is truly the best. " However, a play-off only establishes which team is truly the luckiest. Anyways, my opponent then claims that teams that are in the playoffs could simply not play in the other games. Where's the fun in that? The bowl games are supposed to host the best teams. If the best teams are all in the playoffs, then the bowl games get the leftovers. Also, if you allow early eliminations to participate, then isn't that just rewarding failure? We don't want that. "Finally, I would like to reinforce this debate is about why College Football should implement a play-off, not if the BCS is good or not. The BSC, besides being rigged and thus illegal for obstruction of trade, doesn't really matter in the scope of this debate as the con has to prove why a play-off is so detrimently not merely present a simply counter-plan revoking voting for the BCS. " Well, as long as I can show that the BCS works better than the playoffs when the voting is removed; there is no reason to remove a good system for a poorer one. My argument: Division I College Football should not implement a play-off system because it already has a perfectly good system called BCS. "College football compose to many teams to merely use records and tie breaker like they do in pro sports, though that would be the preffered option to create a play-off. Consiquently, college has to use some kind of selection committee. No one whines about college basketball, in fact everyone loves that. This would be the same, only better cause its football. " The above sentences don't even make any sense. The BCS is the selection committee. "Basically, the Pro team doesn't have to destroy the BCS, though I'll say I hate it, just show the voter why obviously a play-off system is superior. " However, if I show that the BCS is superior, then I win. "1)Have Cinderella's in College Football" Oh, look! Every team that plays them gets injured! Aren't they great? They sure are lucky. "2)Have 4 weeks of intense college Football play-off games like the NFL" And so, all of the college students decide to watch football instead of study for a brighter future when they have upcoming finals, resulting in a dumber generation to make even more mistakes in the course of history. Seriously, you do not want to mess with college students' finals. "3)Bring money into schools that host games. " From Wikipedia: "Also, although controversial, the BCS and non-BCS bowl games earn millions of dollars for college football. Thousands of college alumni enjoy the current bowl system; the bowl games take place around the New Year's Day holiday period, where fans can get time off work and school to travel to a warm-weather destination to watch their team play. " BCS provides revenue, as well. "4)Allow all teams, not just the big ones to have their shot at a title. " Solved with the removal of fan bias. "5)Not take a month off between the regular season and the post season. " Any argument that the playoffs could be placed at a better time could be solved by moving BCS to that same time, should that time actually be better. "For all those reasons (and the dozen more I'll put in my next post) vote Pro. " Two of those arguments apply equally to BCS, one of them becomes irrelevant, and two of them are flawed. Why we should keep the BCS: 1. "Thousands of college alumni enjoy the current bowl system; the bowl games take place around the New Year's Day holiday period, where fans can get time off work and school to travel to a warm-weather destination to watch their team play. " 2. The BCS is more accurate in deciding who deserves the title of champion. 3. The BCS does not conflict with the NFL or college midterms.