Division I College Football Should Implement a Play-off System

So apparently the BCS is a new experimental entity: Take a Mr. Wetzel's analogy on this one: http://rivals.yahoo.com... The old system was like non-alcoholic beer. The BCS is like near beer – that low-alcohol stuff that gets sold in some locales. Given no other choice people prefer near beer over the non-alcohol stuff. That's not a compliment to near beer. It's like saying the BCS has a nice personality. A playoff is the real thing, real beer in all its varieties. If you think college football is popular now, imagine if it did away with the nonsense. You don't even have to drink beer to know real beer outsells the other two about a million to one. They made beer, then we invented near-beer and the non-alcohol crap. Doesn't mean the stuff is good we just made. We made the BCS, its new and experimental. That DOES NOT make it good, far from it. The Basis of all sports resided within a play-off for almost every reason I've given in this debate. My opponent clings to the virtue that the BCS always has the "Two best teams" because the "Computer knows best". Honestly, if you could prove to me, that in every instance a computer some how knew exactly which team to pick then be my guest, but you can't. Something that can't be calculated: Desire, Want, the Will to Win, and referring to the last post Luck. There are no numbers for this. That is why they play the game. That's why they have a regular season. That's why they have a play-off. Look at the last five BCS Title Games: 2004USC55Oklahoma19 2005Texas41USC38 2006Florida41Ohio State14 2007LSU38Ohio State24 2008Florida24Oklahoma14 With the exception of Texas/USC which was undoubtably on of the best games ever played, and one of the only years the BCS didn't come under much scrutiny, All these other games have been blow outs. This years game decided by ten points was still boring and very lop sided. The BCS has obviously been unable to even provide an exciting game like my opponent so said. A play-off allows more chance for good games by virtue of more of them and different match ups. Look at the NFL play-offs this year, ok everyone wasn't a great game, But Bal/Ten, Bal/Pitt, and Pitt/Cards where great. Even the last two years in the NFL the Super Bowl has been Amazing (which though not always the case) at least proves that even through a play-off the championship game can still be good. Look at D-II college football, at least they've been able to produce good final games consitently in the past years: http://www.d2championship.com... 2002: 31-24 2003: 10-3 2004: 36-31 2005: 21-17 2006: 17-14 2008: 21-14 End verdict: Experiment Failed. Back to what works. And about the Championship game making money, If you play more games you make more money. Duh, so having a play-off would bring in more money to the school because you could keep the Championship stacks the same and and stuff for each preceding round. Advatage Play-off on profitability. The Art of the Counter Plan: I know a thing or two about counter plans just ask Waldo. And what your doing is running a counter-plan. The problem with this is you are substaciating changing the current system in every single way to make it better with out adding the play-off. What happens when you have made all of your changes and your system fails to produce as you say it will? The other problem is that since this is an ‘experiment', there is no evidence to base off it will work except the BCS, and consequently since you are reaching out into a hypothetically altered, and in your mind better, version of the BCS you have no evidence that it will work. Meaning its your theory against sports practicality. Emperical examples win out, sorry. Main Voter: "Therefore, if we want to know what team is truly the best, we need to look and a multitude of nights." Exactly my point, you do. And thus a play-off solves this. Thank-you for finally coming Around to my side. Also, on the 1 crushing a 7. In the NFL, they don't have 7's but they do have 6's and 5's which have made for interesting super bowl in recent years. Plus, if a 7 gets to the final that means a one somewhere went down (Assuming in a 16 team play off you had two brackets 1-8; again the norm) and the seven beat the 2 in the opening round on the round. Sounds exciting to me. With a play-off the championship, sadly, is not ALWAYS the best game. Other games can make their mark and be classics. It doesn't however mean the play-off where a waste. Look at the NBA Finals. Noone, by June, cares about Basketball anymore, but the first three round are usually enough to satisfiy any fan. And this year was no exception. Oh, excuse me I had a typo. Restating: How do you eliminate luck from football? And if sports is better without luck then go watch Westle Mania, there is no luck their wanna know why? ‘Cause its rigged. I don't believe selling 100,000 tickets to one game at price X, and selling 100,000 tickets to one games and then selling 100,000 tickets at the same, or higher, price to another game can possible be less profitable to a team. And if it is that's the teams fault. And to the scheduling just put like the semi-finals and finals then and schedule the other games before. It'll work if you make it. Its not like people don't watch college football in Sep.-Nov. when they have school and work and kinds of other stuff. Wanna know why Sub-Division, D-II, and D-III schools have a play-off? Because it decides the best champion. Wanna know why everyone, as I've stated previously, has play-offs because it decides the best champion. Fact. Your computer might get lucky, but even you said if it does that is a bad think. Ok, so I'll give you the whole ‘that's what make college football the greatest sport ever ‘cause our play-off is the regular season' even though you didn't openly state it. But seriously, better? No, look now. What is more interesting, a regular season game or a Conference Championship game? Or a bowl game? Or a BCS game? The Post Season is better because it's the post season. A play-off would be the best because it would be one fair, to deside the best team, and three produce the most intense and awsume competion. Again, you propose semi-alcohlic beer when I want to give you the real thing. Like Coke Zero instead of Real Coke. Take the Real stuff Man! The whole ‘experimental' think only flies if the ‘experiment' works. What about the 1,000 ways Einstein made the light bulb that didn't work? Exactly no one knows anything about them. The BCS is a failed experiment, what your proposing will just be an attempt to limp the experiment on until a real solution replaces it: A play-off. Seriously, it is that improbably that 3 teams finish undeafeted? Or a handful finish with one loss? Your looking at over a Hundred teams, in Eleven conferences. Your looking at about eleven teams (theoretically) that could finish undefeated in a given year. And no matter how you worked the schedule three or four could easily turn out unbeaten come end of the regular season. This year we had two (Utah and Bosie) and Ball State and ‘Bama both lost in the Conference Championship games which would have made any easy four. I think you want the stars to just aline aline for your system every year, they won't. Thus, you need a play-off. A hundred teams didn't all play each other in a twelve game season…hmmm….. http://www.bankrollsports.com... FYI: In 2004,after all bowl games where played (Play-off selection would be w/o any bowl games) three teams where undefeated in College Football: USC (The National Champion, Auburn, and Utah) Yes, it can and will happen. Ok, so even if you buy all the reason they physically could do a play-off (*B*ll Sh*t*), sorry I had to cough. You have to look at the resolution ‘should'. As long as we ‘should' implement the play-off. Boom, pro. Vote Pr