Nevermind.

And that Trev Alberts needs to Shut the hell up. Dude, you don't like replay. I get it.

I'm not a huge Notre Dame fan, but after the way they were dissed by the moving of the pre-game show, good for them for beating Michigan!

As a Notre Dame student, let's just say that win against Michigan was one of the more awesome things I've seen in my life.

I keep waiting for Aaron taylor's eyebrows to get up and start walking off his head. They look like thick black caterpillers.

Is anyone else extremely disgusted by all the comparisons to Barry Sanders by announcers? I'm looking particularly at Tim Ryan, Keith Jackson, & Joe Tessitore, who compared DonTrell Moore, Vernand Morency, & Ryan Moats to him, respectively.

Also, does the new ABC scorebug really bug anyone else? I like MNF's, but the college one seems way too big, especially when unranked teams play and there are just two huge dashes sitting there.

And Musburger seemed really uninterested, and just downright awful, at the end of Georgia Tech/Clemson.

The rulemakers need to follow the NFL's lead regarding starting the clock after out-of-bounds plays and incompletions. Then they could even keep the rule of stopping the clock on first downs. The NFL has been able to get most games to clock in at right around three hours. There's no reason college games can't be the same way.

Thank God there have been conference games in the SEC early in the season. Maybe it's just me but I have been mind-numbingly bored with intersectional games between mid-level teams thus far. Michigan State-Rutgers? Please spare me.

More like four hours, in many instances. This is exactly why I have stopped watching college football. Between the incessant commercials and clock stoppages, it's a ridiculous investment of time for me. Say what you want about soccer, but the action is fairly non-stop and 99% of the telecasts end within 2 hours.

I think that teams are now going by the "it's not if you lose, it's when you lose" mentality in their schedules. Abusing the BCS System to their advantage. That's why you'll probably end up seeing Florida State in a BCS bowl at the end of the year.



In Canada, we get ABC Detroit, and they always replace the early ABC game with and ESPN Plus Big Ten Matchup, which seems like it ends up always being Michigan State vs. Vanderbilt.

I can watch college football all day. And I do, every Saturday. The games can last as long as they please, 'cuz I'm just gonna keep watching college football when they're done.

And the NFL can get their games done in 60 minutes flat, but as long as all they do is trade field goals and everyone winds up 8-8, it'll never come close to being as compelling as the college game.

As a Michigan fan (and hopeful student) I have disowned the football team as of this week. Damn you Lloyd Carr.



*raises hand*

Brian (or Brent?) Musburger is forever known to me as Mushburger thanks to my cornball of a father. Hee. Mushburger. God, why do I find that so funny?

Musberger is an idiot. I was absolutely elated when CBS finally showed him the door after inflicting him on their audience for virtually every sporting event they broadcast. Naturally, he landed on his feet, and is now making ABC's college football games unwatchable. Is he technically competent? Yes. Is he a shameless shill for his network? Yes. Is he a drinkin' buddy for network executives? Probably. Have I ever met anybody who liked his work? No.

As a Michigan alum and fan a big FAT WORD to the above. Who is ready to start www.firelloydcarr.com?

Tracy Wolfson please SHUT UP now.

I would ask Tim Brando to shut up now, and later. He seems to be such a solid guy, but during his updates and halftime show he spewed hack phrases and made stupid voices. Who is he, Chris Berman?

MusHberger seems to be a nice guy and he was still unfairly shitcanned at CBS, but my God does he suck. He's a aural cocksucker, and he tends to give the players and teams stupid nicknames during the broadcast. To this day I still remember him actually say, on the air, "And here comes Martin Gramatica -- Automatica!!!" like he was the Copy Machine Guy from Saturday Night Live. And his cadence is unlistenable -- dramatic sentences that always end with him shouting: "Long throw over the middle ... CAUGHT BY SWIFT! AND A TIMEOUT CALLED BY TENNESSEE!!!" Not to mention his brother being an agent automatically puts any trust in his objectivity in doubt.

Fantastic Vols-Gators game tonight; what's with all these missed PAT's and short field goals in college football this year? And Wilhoit follows that fubar with a 50-yarder? SEC football is great, but it's jarring that a national network would lavish so much attention on the one conference they have rights to, and thus only one area of the country. (I don't get Sonic up here.) Still, I don't know about you guys, but I love CBS' college football theme song. They've used it for the past decade or so, and they should be using it for at least that long.

You mean there isn't one already?!

The College Gameday crew was on-scene for the Mich. St-Notre Dame game this week and from what I've read, Lee Corso wasn't too well-liked by the MSU students. I guess he was waving around a Notre Dame flag and just layering on the praise, so some Michigan State students started throwing debris at him. Hee! Serves you right, "Coach."

Is it wrong that I'm going to start calling Gramatica "Automatica" from this day on? Oh Mushburger, you are always good for a laugh.

I watched "College Game Day" very closely this past Saturday morning (10/17) since my son attends Purdue and I knew that he would be in the crowd with several of his friends. I became increasingly irritated because every time the camera panned the crowd there was a gigantic promo which took up at least one quarter of the screen. I don't think he was ever on camera but I'll never know since he would have been blocked out of the picture anyway.

Wow, Ty Willingham gets fired and the world of sports seems to stop on it's ear. Hope all the talk and indignation doesn't last too long. Ty was a great guy by all accounts but an average coach... if Ron Zook and the Nebraska coach who went 9-3 last year can be whacked no one should be surprised that Ty was "not retained"

As an avid Nebraska hater and Colorado Graduate, I can't stand that 9-3 stat that is tossed out about Frank Solich. It really points to the lack of backchecking and homerism displayed by some analysts (ev-tray alberts-ay.) Nebraska is notorius for scheduling cupcakes in their non conference play, 3 of those wins came against SMiss, Troy State, and 1-AA McNeese and since CU beat them 62-36 three years ago Nebraska had only 1 win versus a ranked opponent (an inispiring season opener against #25 Ok STate.)

As reactionary as boosters are they knew that 9-3 record didn't hold water.

Exactly. By contrast, Notre Dame rarely has any cupcakes on their schedule. So Willingham's record would be much better if ND was actually affiliated with a conference for football.

I'm holding out hope that he'll consider returning to Stanford.

From what I can tell, ESPN commentators like Herbstreit agree that Willingham's firing was unfair.

BTW, Willingham was fired because Urban Meyer, one of the hottest coaches in college football is leaving Utah and is pretty much a lock at Notre Dame. I know people are pissed and there is some use of the "race card" (and yes, it is pretty bad when there are only 2 African American coaches in all of college football), but Willingham wasn't really improving the program anyway.

If Meyer wasn't leaving Utah and there hadn't been murmurs that Penn State was finally going to drop Paterno to get Meyer in, Willingham would've probably gotten all of the 5 year contract that their coaches have gotten recently.

So really, I don't think the firing was particularly unfair, since if ND didn't get Meyer now, they'd probably never get him, and they needed to strike while the iron was hot (Meyer was an assistant coach at ND and they considered hiring him at one point and decided he was too green. Plus, Willingham wasn't even ND's first choice when they did hire him.)

Time for Plan B.... Amusing to see this blow up in ND face... I wonder how many coaches they'll have to offer the job to this time.

I've been confused by the analysis of what this shitcanning says about Notre Dame. On the one hand, the talking heads (Aaron Lewis of ABC Sports and the columnists of ESPN.com, among others) wax existential and say Willingham's ouster two years short of his contract being a sign that Notre Dame isn't "Notre Dame" anymore, i.e. it doesn't want to be the high-standard beacon it once was. But then they say that Meyer opting for Florida instead is a sign that Notre Dame isn't "Notre Dame" anymore, i.e. people no longer want to coach at a place where academic success is looked on just as importantly as wins. How can you shake your head over ND dumbing itself down and coaches turning down the program because it's too "smart"? That sounds like a contradiction. Seriously, can someone explain this to me?

Speaking of Lewis, I like him, but *looking around before whispering* I am pretty bugged that his mouth is pinched on one corner. Every time I look at him I go, "Why are you talking out of the corner of your mouth?" Archie Manning, Patriarch of the Gunslinging Manning Clan yet a disciple of the Kit Culkin School of Overbearing Team Negotiating, made a pretty fine guest studio analyst alongside the annoying Tim Brando. Best, however, goes to Spencer Tillman; like Clark Kellogg, he's fast yet has pertinent information about a game and a team's season. Plus, *whispering again* he's got deeply hypnotic eyes.

Quick personal plug: The BCS is horseshit, and we here at TWoP Nation know it. I don't know why they need to go through a selection show, but we all know they'll soft-pedal the controversy of three major unbeaten teams. (Aside: Do you know what really pisses me off about the BCS? Every year I become aware of some obscure rule that makes the polls not what they appear to be. This year I found out that if there are two non-BCS teams that are ranked 6 or higher, they bump out any team from a BCS conference that doesn't win its conference -- in this case, Cal. I think I'm a pretty savvy college football fan and I didn't know there was a rule like this. I can understand it -- and hey, it would've only been Cal, so fuck 'em -- but this is another example of the BCS's total lack of transparency that only serves to confuse and anger the fan.) There should be a playoff. In fact, they should use the model I have. It's not rocket science, I just used the best ideas I've heard from other people, but I'm proud of what I've created. So proud, in fact, that if any of you want to see it, e-mail me and I'd be glad to send it to you.

I don't think that they're saying that ND is trying to dumb itself down...I think that they're saying that ND is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Sure, ND's AD said that Willingham's teams were wonderful "From Sunday to Friday" (thus giving a nod to academics), but he said that they weren't up to par "On Saturday" (thus showing that in the end, football success is 1A at ND, and academic success is 1B).

At the same time, I don't think that ND is going to relax their academic standards. Unfortunately for whoever they bring in to coach, they're also not willing to accept that their current academic requirements and scheduling practices are in conflict with the goal of winning 10 or 11 games a year and competing for the national championship. Even with the recruiting advantage that the NBC contract gives them, the current model doesn't work in my opinion. Clearly Urban Meyer thought his chances were better at Florida.

(Personally, as someone who doesn't drink the ND Kool-Aid, I'd like to see them join the Big 10. In terms of combining academics and athletics, that's a very fine conference. It's an obvious geographic fit, and it would get the conference up to the magical 12 team mark. They already play Michigan and Michigan St each year. Sure, they'd give up that independence that sets them apart - but their recent actions are showing that they're not really that different after all.)

In terms of TV coverage, this morning on the Sports Reporters William Rhoden tried to compare Willingham to Jackie Robinson, and said that while Branch Rickey backed Robinson, ND's administration didn't back Willingham. While I agree that the current situation vis-a-vis Black coaches in NCAA football is deplorable, Rhoden did overlook one key difference in the two situations - Robinson's on the field performance was much higher than Willingham's. (Sure, there are reasons that I've stated above that make winning tough at ND, but clearly their administration is looking strictly at the bottom line, and if the goal is BCS-level play, then Willingham fell short.) If Robinson had not performed on the field, Rickey would have been in a different situation.

BCS Selection show always irritiates me because since the BCA horseshit of the mid nineties started I have pushed for a playoff. Hell, a playoff using the bowls would be even better and fair for both systems.

But when Auburn beats a ranked team by 10 and looses ground to an Oklahoma team that stomps a team that barely reached .500 in conference I don't get it. Furthermore, I cannot fathom why Texas gets ahead of California or Utah in the BCS. (Then again, I hate Texas more than Oklahoma and hate the Sooners more than Auburn and I HATE Auburn). The system sucks and at least ABC Sports and ESPN have started to press for more change.

Frank Beemer is looking old on the Selection Show!

I think it is pretty safe to say that this year's BCS is the biggest crock of shit in the history of the system. Three teams (Auburn, Cal, Boise State) have had magnificent seasons and have all gotten screwed. Being a Golden Bears fan, I am incredibly furious about Cal not going to the Rose Bowl. Their only loss was a 6 point nailbiter versus USC and they are ahead of Texas in the polls. Words can't explain how furious I am right now.

In SI this week, the one with the Detroit cover, they detail problems with the BCS and mention that the nets were pushing for a playoff or at least a plus one game. But the presidents don't want it.

SI even talks about a study that said the NCAA would make more money with a playoff.

I don't buy the crap about missing classes. A)Like the NCAA gives a shit about acedemics and B) D-2 has a playoff and those guys actuly need their degrees.

Well, if we had the old system in place, rather than the BCS, USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn would all most likely be playing in different bowls. The BCS was set up so numbers 1 and 2 could play each other this year, and that was accomplished. I disagree that this is the worst result of the BCS. Nebraska making the Rose Bowl a few years ago and last year's debacle were much worse.



Because the BCS does one thing well that I like: they take into account the entire season rather than who played well the previous Saturday.



It can be debated all day who's better. Texas has wins against 3 ranked opponents to California's one. Add to the fact that the Big 12 South alone was a better conference than the Pac-10 and you may have an answer.

I feel your pain, Lakers Suck. The Rose Bowl slot going to Texas (who barely beat Kansas, by the way. Fucking KANSAS!!!) has pushed my Sun Devils down to the Juarez Bowl.

And what of Utah? They were screwed out of gaining any respect because the BCS tossed up Pittsburgh as a sacrificial lamb after everyone had spent the second half of the season discrediting the Big East in general.

Then Idiot Boy on the selection show has to call it a 'good game', when it's become increasingly clear all season that Utah would slaughter anyone the Big East offered up.

As for Cal, I wholeheartedly agree that you got the shaft. You'd be in the Rose Bowl had the Texas coach not unleashed a sob story worthy of Queen For a Day about Texas not being in the BCS for FOUR WHOLE SEASONS. The punishment? I advocate voodoo when they play Michigan.

Fuck the BCS, fucking redneck communist Bush fascist fucking horseshit faggot John Kerry red state hanging chad crap system. The greatest injustice was not Cal not going to the Rose Bowl, it was Cal, the #4 ranked team, getting screwed out of ALL the BCS bowls while #23 Pitt goes to the Fiesta Bowl. I mean, WTF? Any system that punishes sound fundamental football (i.e. running the ball against a weaker opponent) and good sportsmanship (taking a knee) and a win by 10 points over a team that DIDN'T PLAY AT ALL in the last week is retarded.

I'm so moving to Canada. And go Michigan.

Wasn't it funny when that one loser (the little one) was asking a question to the coaches of Pitt and Utah and didn't specify which one he was talking to, and they both started yammering over each other, then the Pitt guy stopped, and then he started but the Utah guy kept talking. Maybe it wasn't, but I'm trying to laugh through my tears.

Cal and Texas played the same amount of games and finished with the same record. The fact that Cal played last weekend and Texas didn't makes no difference.

How big of a baby was Trev Alberts during the show?

Because the Cornhuskers didn't get invited to the BCS?

No doubt. If Texas had been playing that final-week game instead of Cal, I'll bet their coach would run up the score, like really blatantly (i.e. calling timeouts in the final minute to punch it in one more time) while walking the sidelines wearing a sandwich board that reads, "BCS VOTE FOR US PLEASE!". Just seems like that type.

Why was the selection show so drawn out? Why not reveal all 4 games and then head on to the interviews and endless analysis?

Because Auburn had the easiest schedule out of the top 3. Because Auburn's non conference games were La Tech, La Monroe and The Citadel. Because Oklahoma beat a top 5 team, don't say when Auburn played LSU they were top 5. Texas finished the season in the top 5. Oklahoma's 3 biggest victories came on the road. Auburn's biggest wins with the exception of Tennesse came at home.

Auburn has no shot to win the national title. It doesn't matter who wins the Orange Bowl, Auburn won't get a share of the title. If USC wins they will have went wire to wire and defeated Oklahoma, if Oklahoma wins they will have went undefeated and beaten the #1 team in the nation. It'd be terrible if there was a split national champion, because the winner of OU USC deserves the title.

Now if someone wants to talk about what Oklahoma did last year and Jason White's bad performances in the last 2 games(those games should not count for the Heisman Trophy this year), remember what Auburn did last year.



As much as I hate the BCS and I do hate the BCS, it's better than what we had before. Just look at 1993 when FSU and Notre Dame both ended the season with one loss, FSU got the national title. Notre Dame's only loss that season was to Boston College and FSU's only loss was to Notre Dame. Yet somehow they decided that Florida State had the best team in the nation.

As for Boise State, they're going to get smoked by Louisville. BSU's got a fantastic offense, the defense is terrible. They haven't been even remotely as impressive as Utah has. BSU would get trounced by USC, OU, Auburn, Cal, Texas, and Utah. Boise State doesn't have the defense to hang with any of those teams.

I will agree that Pitt getting into a BCS bowl and causing Cal and Texas to fight over 1 spot was ridiculous. Both Cal and Texas should have been in a BCS bowl, but Pitt had to get an automatic bid. I don't think that to many people would have had a problem if Colorado or Tennesse got in as an automatic bid, because they would have won their conferences in a game and in the process beaten a top 3 team.

Eh, that's just Trev. He's a total ass. He constantly called Utah not worthy of being in the BCS up to last week (before the Big East became a clusterfuck) but now there's someone "worse" so he'll jump to slamming Pitt. Nah, Pitt shouldn't be there but they did what they had to do (which was finish ahead of Syracuse) to get it.

I think I'm over the Auburn slight but #4 Cal not getting in, to me, is criminal.

Auburn doesn't bother me. As jediknight said, their extremely weak out-of-conference schedule is a problem of their own making. I don't find their record as impressive as they do.

That said, as a USC alum I have to say Cal totally got shafted. Great season, great sportsmanship, they deserve to go to the Rose Bowl. For a while some Cal friends were contemplating into either going down to the Rose Parade and holding up "Cal got robbed" signs or paying one of those skywriting planes to write that over the Rose Bowl game, but they ended up being just too decent to do it.

The BCS did what it was supposed to do: get #1 to play #2. Unfortunately, it's pretty subjective as to who is #1 & #2. The BCS, no matter how crappy it is, is better than having the national champion determined by coaches and sportswriters who never saw most of the good teams anyway. Until they come to their senses and institute a 4 team or 8 team playoff, crowning someone the national champion is a joke anyway.

"I think that they got numbers 1 and 2 right. Maybe not in the right order, I think Oklahoma is better than USC. Of course that may be bias talking, because I'm an Oklahoma fan, and I prefer UCLA to USC. Also USC had close games against Stanford, Oregon State and UCLA, and according to some people the top teams shouldn't have close games against inferior opponents. Trev Alberts was one of the people who said that Oklahoma shouldn't be ranked ahead of Auburn because Oklahoma had close games against inferior teams.



Aw Trev's Nebraska team didn't make a bowl game. I guess the Blackshirts aren't back, I can't tell you how happy I am about Nebraska falling flat on their face. And Georgia didn't make a BCS bowl, I don't think that he moved Georgia out of the top ten all year.

There are times when Trev is actually good(awarding Ted Roof and the Duke team 2 helmet stickers last year), and times where he's a complete and utter homer(praising Nebraska non stop).

Bill Snyder cost Kansas State a shot at the National Title doing the same thing. I wish someone would bring that up nationaly. Oklahoma is the only one I can get behind, because it isn't their fault the Big 12 North sucked.

What pisses me off about the NCAA turning down a playoffs is that it would mean more money for schools. Football programs at some schools might not lose money, players might be able to get a better stipend, nonrevenue sports could get better funding. NCAA football has to be one of the most archaic institutions in the US.

Well, I've kicked around two possible proposals for a while, both of which would be, I think, better than what we've got:

1. BCS consists of the two human polls and one computer. The computer would be set up like this:
*Undefeateds always go first. No discussion, no debate. If nobody's been able to prove you can be beaten, I don't much care if "nobody" consists of Arkansas St., Central Florida and Al's House 'O' Book Learnin'. You go to the front of the list. So our top 5 is USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, Utah and Boise St., in pretty much that order. That would mean all 5 get to go to the BCS bowls. Cal, Texas and everybody else has to wait for someone to lose before they can climb out of 6th. They don't like it? They shouldn't have lost, then.
*The second criteria: Strength of schedule. Three-quarters who you played and one-quarter who your opponents played. There's a weighting system in place to reward beating good teams and to punish losing to bad ones. You beat Texas, you get rewarded. You beat Indiana, no bonus. You lose to Virginia Tech, that's understandable. You lose to Rutgers, you get dinged quite a bit. Losing to a 1-AA school disqualifies you from the top 6 for the rest of the season.
*Third criteria: Real margin of victory. There'd be some convoluted and hard-to-comprehend formula here to discount points earned from running up the score. You score an insurance touchdown to put yourself up 10 with 2 minutes left, that's fine. The touchdown comes with 30 seconds left, it gets docked a bit because only rarely does a team score in a 30-second drive. If you pass the ball 40 yards to go up 52 and you're not even out of the 3rd quarter yet, you stopped getting your points counted long ago. (Running TD's would not get docked at all, as if you don't like taking knees, that's the next best thing. Run it up the gut and if you score, you score. It's when you're passing that you're trying to run up the score.)

Proposal 2: Say it with me, you know the words. Playoff. Mine is 16 teams. I wanted 8, but why I went 16 was this:
*The first teams that qualify are the winners of every conference. I know, some of the conferences suck. But a big problem is with the BCS, it favors some conferences over others, even if one of the favored conferences blows. This way, you'll still have some crap in the mix, but everyone gets a shot. It's like March Madness for football. So this would put in USC (Pac 10), Oklahoma (Big 12), Auburn (SEC), Utah (Mountain West), Boise St. (WAC), Michigan (Big 10), Virginia Tech (ACC), Pittsburgh (Big East), Louisville (Conference USA), Toledo (MAC), and North Texas (Sun Belt). That's 11, which is more automatic bids than the 8-team bracket could hold. So we have to go to 16. No place is held for independents. Notre Dame and Navy don't like it? Join a conference. You both look mighty appetizing right now.
*Next are any other undefeateds- hey, sometimes people don't play each other in conference play. It is feasible. Doesn't happen here.
*Then we go down the line by record. The one-loss teams go next (record would say that a 11-1 team gets preference over 10-1 and 11-2). We do that until our 5 spots are filled. Ties are broken by the coaches' poll. So that means the remaining 5 are: Texas (10-1), Cal (10-1), Georgia (9-2), Iowa (9-2), LSU (9-2). Wisconsin (9-2) and Navy (9-2) lose on coaches' poll points.
*Seeding? The coaches and media get one final poll with only those 16 names: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Boise St., Michigan, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Louisville, Toledo, North Texas, Texas, Cal, Georgia, Iowa, and LSU. They would rank the teams from 1-16. The resulting combined rankings (we toss the media and coaches into one huge melting pot for this one) decide the bracket. I'd have to think USC gets North Texas in the first round.

That said, I'm not that big a fan of the helmet stickers. I think I saw the Tar Heels get more than anyone. And now that you mention it, yea, Trev is a Nebraska homer. At least he's not Skip Bayless. (Is this what ESPN's been reduced to? "At least this annoying ESPN personality's not this even MORE annoying ESPN personality"?)

Best sign I've ever seen held up during a game? Cal vs. Southern Miss, a Cal fan holding a sign that read: "BCS - C = BS!"

C being the symbol for Cal, naturally.

Those guys that drove to Southern Miss from Texas are going to be rewarded substantially for their efforts. Bet their friends that decided not to go with them are bummin' now.

Where do I vote to make out with Matt Leinart?

Just kidding. I'm all for the 16 team playoff system too.

I used to support one, but am now about as anti-playoff as one can get.

What separates college football from just about every other sport is that Every. Game. Matters. You lose once, that's it. In most years, you're cooked. Under a playoff system, losing in the regular season is no longer such a big deal. Why bother watching a glorified exhibition where little is at stake? I am willing to bet that ratings from September to December for the "big games" would go down. A battle of undefeateds in late November means nothing if both teams are "gonna make the playoffs" anyway.

The way I see it, no matter how many teams you invite, there will always be one or two others who have a legitimate gripe about having been screwed. In a two-team system, there will be a third on the outside looking in. In an eight-team playoff, there will be a 9th and 10th team who will claim they deserved to get in. Where will it end, if we keep expanding the number of eligible teams? KISS, is what I say.

That's a good point about the regular season meaning more in college football. Sometimes I get the feeling that many fans of college basketball would just as soon have a few weeks of practice, perhaps 2 or 3 warmup games, and launch right into conference tournaments and the NCAA tournament. Nobody seems to care much at all about the regular season, and the TV coverage often descends into a constant droning on about RPI. The commentators spend pretty much the entire months of January, February, and early March talking about "bubble teams", and not about the teams that are truly excelling during regular season play. "Who's going to get in? Who's going to be left out?" (Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, "Who cares?". But I haven't really had to worry about my team getting in for a very long time now, which I freely admit colors my view of this topic.) The tournament is wonderful. I love the tournament. But there's more to the season than just the tournament, no matter what CBS thinks.

On topic with football coverage, it's interesting that ABC bowed out of the BCS TV package due to the addition of an extra game, feeling that it had been "watered down". I wonder if the networks aren't also somewhat conflicted about the whole playoff issue - on the one hand, a true playoff could be very lucrative at year's end, but it could also harm ratings and income for the remainder of the season. I also wonder if they'd just as soon avoid a bidding war for a playoff system in order to cut down on costs.

I'm not sure I can buy the arguement that having an 8 or 16 team playoff will water down the regular season. That's still a very small amount of teams, so I think each game would still mean an awful lot. Also, the way it's set up now, you have teams basically giving up on seasons if they lose in the first or second week. That happened to Auburn last year, which led to them being ranked around 19th in the preseason polls, which played a part in them not being able to overtake Oklahoma or USC, but that's a whole other issue.

The thing I can't understand is why isn't Auburn playing Utah? I mean, seriously, is anyone really looking forward to the Auburn/Va. Tech and Pitt/Utah games?

As a Michigan Fan it goes like this:

After an early first loss we'll say, "Well at least it's early and maybe something crazy will happen like only one no-loss team and a bunch of one loss teams and we can get over. And if not, there's still the Big Ten Championship and the Rose Bowl to shoot for".

After the first Big Ten loss we'll say, "Well we still can still share the Big Ten Championship and maybe sneak into the Rose Bowl".

After the second Big Ten loss we'll say, "What's Ohio States record? 9-0? Let's ruin their season".

My point? If a team gives up after one loss... it isn't much of a team. The regular season is the playoffs... it won't ever change, arguing about it every year is just torture to my ears.

Unless you're Auburn, Utah, or Boise State
Unless you began the preseason ranked outside the top ten, and two of the teams in ranked ahead of you also went undefeated.

Then, every game doesn't matter. You can have the best season in school history, and you still don't have the opportunity to play for the title -- because that was decided upon by voters and computers instead of the game on the field.

Every Game Matters only if everybody gets to play everybody else. But they don't. And it would have been even more hilarious if, say, Wisconsin had gone undefeated out of the Big Ten, or an ACC team had won out too.

If you have an 8-team playoff, the games still matter. And the championships are still decided on the field of play. And I rather have team #9 bitching about being left out, than team #3. Granted, those teams have secondary goals of winning conferences and so on.

That said, teams and alumni love the bowl tradition, and you can't have an equitable or sensible championship as long as you try to do the bowls. And the new BCS still fails to give a satisfactory conclusion, while also strafing the old traditions. So I think they should just give up and go back to the traditional bowl allotments instead of voting over a pretend title between teams that aren't going to play each other.

Actually, it's better to lose early than to lose later in the year. You still have time to rise in the polls as other teams fall.

Let's face it. NCAA Div 1A football is screwed up. The people in charge don't care that there's no definitive #1. Players get disciplined for the smallest infraction but a bowlbound coach - Urban Meyer - can quit on his team and take another head coaching job and nobody cares. It's all about the $$$. I read somewhere that the real reason Ty Willingham was fired from Notre Dame was because a group of boosters weren't going to write their usual checks to the school's endowment fund if he weren't fired. It's all about the $$$.

I don't buy it either. In basketball, there are 64 teams and almost every conference has a tournament that invites everyone in the conference. So a team like Villinova could play like shit for 3 months, get hot at the end of the season, win the conference tourney, and win the championship.

There wouldn't be a conference tourney to decide the champ, it would be based on regular season games. Win your conference, you're in. Occasionally, a dud like Pitt will make it in. Good cannon fodder for the first round against USC or Oklahoma. That's an incentive to win every game. Say Oklahoma lost a non-conference game. They might have to play Michigan in the first round instead of Pitt.