USC would win it all. In fact I think they may have won it the last 2-3 years. Too bad for them tey keep tripping over one game a year.

Why would you think a playoff would tell us whether “one team is better than the other”? It would tell us which team won that particular game, but that hardly settles the matter. Nobody — nobody — thinks Oregon State is objectively better than USC. Or that Ole Miss is objectively better than Florida.

What a playoff would definitely to is a take a big chunk of the fun out of college football. It would increase the focus on the national picture, which is relevant for only a very small number of teams. On the other hand, the argument about who is better is the only thing that makes life worth living from January through August. The thing that did more to solidify me as a fan of college football in general and Husky football in particular is cultivating a white-hot hatred for BYU following the 1984 season. The messiness is what’s fun! It’s the beauty.

If we had a playoff, it wouldn’t change the uncertainty, anyway. Listen, it is totally impossible to take 120 teams, play 12 games each, and decide which one is best. You can’t do it. Instead of thinking of a team’s “goodness” as a single number, think of it as a very wide, flat bell-shaped curve. Although USC’s average game is higher than Oregon State’s, on any given Saturday there’s a reasonable chance that Oregon State’s roll of the dice will produce a higher number than USC’s. That’s hugely entertaining, but it makes it impossible to actually know who is best without playing many, many games — in fact, playing each team many, many times.

Fortunately, it doesn’t matter. USC fans can believe they got screwed, and so can Utah fans. Florida fans can point to their accomplishments, and Texas fans can ask why they weren’t invited seeing as how they beat Oklahoma anyway. We can all argue this and debate it endlessly until Labor Day. What a great system!

No playoff!

The coaches poll is a joke. I don’t think Mack Brown watched Utah play all season long- at least not until the Sugar Bowl. But Brown has a vote in the coaches poll- GOOD GRIEF!

The interactive Harris Poll? I heard on ESPN radio that they conducted an interview of some of the Harris Poll voters. The voters of this poorly planned poll said they didn’t watch Utah play all season long. How much of this fraud is going on? How many coaches will vote for a team they beat higher in the polls just so their strength of schedule looks better on paper, better yet on a computerized spread sheet?

That brings us to the computer rankings. How is the imput tabulated? Do they rank all 119 football programs 1 thru 119, what is their criteria based upon? You see ladies and gentlemen this is where the real bias stems from. Somewhere in the preseason these computer geeks have to rank all 119 programs in order to have a rank template to work with. From their the computer does the rest of the work on its own all season long. So in regards to the computer poll, the process is biased even before the season kicks underway. Same thing applies to the coaches poll preseason top 25.

It’s no wonder the AP saw the BCS system as fraud. Why else would the pull out of it? They saw the fraud in the way Texas was able to leap frog Cal in the final poll to get invited to a BCS bowl game. Soon after the AP announced that it would no longer be aligned with anything associated with the BCS.

The AP poll is not perfect, but from this onlooker it is the most qualified, credible, unbiased, and legit poll. And I firmly believe it should weigh heavier in crowning a national champion over the fraudulent BCS system.

I think the term “Defense Wins Championships” was just proven to be a true statement over the last year. USC’s defense destroys Penn State, Utah’s defense manhandles the Tide, Florida’s defense puts the clamps down on the overhyped supposively all-world Sooner offense, and the NY Football Giants defense comes up aces in last year’s SuperBowl win over the undefeated Pats.

Their should be no question about it anymore.

It seems nobody likes the current BCS format, including me. Even the Plus One would not solve the problem this year; U$C, Utah, FL, and maybe even TX had a legitimate claim to being in the game. But we couldn’t do that because t he children have to get back to school, except the last game was Jan 8th.

If they don’t want to do a real championship on the field, I would be happy to go back to the pre-BCS bowl arrangements. The BCS destroyed the old bowl system. And after the bowls were over, there were lots of champs and we could argue about who was the best.

If what you want is a formal, “official,” bona fide, endorsed, and hand-delivered national champion, then the BCS is a disaster. (I’d argue that any system intended to do this for college football is bound to fail, anyway.) But, if what you want is a whole bunch of great games at the end of the year, then the BCS is fantastic! Just look at the stellar lineup we had, with so many top-10 teams playing each other.

The BCS is silly because it pretends to do what it can’t: crown a national champion. But it is pretty good at giving us great football in January. Count your blessings.

That’s it. It doesn’t settle the argument, it just ends it. Besides, other than Utah, its not like anybody has room to complain. If USC had just beaten Oregon State, they’d be polishing their faux-crystal football-shaped trophy right now. Same with everybody else.